User login
More evidence the flu vaccine may guard against Alzheimer’s
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.
“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.
The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.
The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
40% lower risk
Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.
However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.
Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.
The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.
During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.
The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
Mechanism unclear
“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.
“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.
It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.
“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
Alzheimer’s expert weighs in
Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.
“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.
“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.
“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE
Anorexia linked to notable shrinkage of key brain structures
, a new brain imaging study shows.
The reductions of cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and cortical surface area were “very pronounced in acutely underweight anorexia,” Stefan Ehrlich, MD, PhD, head of the Eating Disorder Treatment and Research Center, Technical University, Dresden, Germany, told this news organization.
Yet even a “partial weight gain brings some normalization of these shrinkages. From this it can be deduced that a fast/early normalization of weight is also very important for brain health,” said Dr. Ehrlich.
The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.
‘A wake-up call’
Researchers with the international ENIGMA Eating Disorders Working Group analyzed T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging scans for nearly 2,000 people with AN (including those in recovery) and healthy controls across 22 sites worldwide.
In the AN sample, reductions in cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and, to a lesser extent, cortical surface area, were “sizable (Cohen’s d up to 0.95), widespread, and co-localized with hub regions,” they report.
These reductions were two and four times larger than the abnormalities in brain size and shape seen in patients with other mental illnesses, the researchers note.
Noting the harmful impact of anorexia-related undernutrition on the brain, these deficits were associated with lower body mass index in the AN sample and were less severe in partially weight-restored patients – implying that, with appropriate early treatment and support, the brain might be able to repair itself, the investigators note.
“This really is a wake-up call, showing the need for early interventions for people with eating disorders,” Paul Thompson, PhD, author and lead scientist for the ENIGMA Consortium, said in a news release.
“The international scale of this work is extraordinary. Scientists from 22 centers worldwide pooled their brain scans to create the most detailed picture to date of how anorexia affects the brain,” Dr. Thompson added.
“The brain changes in anorexia were more severe than in other any psychiatric condition we have studied. Effects of treatments and interventions can now be evaluated, using these new brain maps as a reference,” he noted.
Immediate clinical implications
Reached for comment, Allison Eliscu, MD, chief of the division of adolescent medicine, department of pediatrics, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said the findings have immediate implications for clinical care.
“When we talk to our patients and the parents, a lot of them focus on things that they can see, such as the way they look. It adds a lot to the conversation to be able to say: You’re obviously not seeing these changes in the brain, but they’re happening and could be potentially long term if you don’t start weight restoring, or if you weight restore and then continue to drop again,” Dr. Eliscu said in an interview.
The findings, she said, really do highlight what anorexia can do to the brain.
“Adolescents need to know, anorexia can absolutely decrease the size of your brain in different areas; you’re not just losing weight in your belly and your thighs, you’re losing weight in the brain as well and that’s really concerning,” said Dr. Eliscu.
The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Eliscu report no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new brain imaging study shows.
The reductions of cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and cortical surface area were “very pronounced in acutely underweight anorexia,” Stefan Ehrlich, MD, PhD, head of the Eating Disorder Treatment and Research Center, Technical University, Dresden, Germany, told this news organization.
Yet even a “partial weight gain brings some normalization of these shrinkages. From this it can be deduced that a fast/early normalization of weight is also very important for brain health,” said Dr. Ehrlich.
The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.
‘A wake-up call’
Researchers with the international ENIGMA Eating Disorders Working Group analyzed T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging scans for nearly 2,000 people with AN (including those in recovery) and healthy controls across 22 sites worldwide.
In the AN sample, reductions in cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and, to a lesser extent, cortical surface area, were “sizable (Cohen’s d up to 0.95), widespread, and co-localized with hub regions,” they report.
These reductions were two and four times larger than the abnormalities in brain size and shape seen in patients with other mental illnesses, the researchers note.
Noting the harmful impact of anorexia-related undernutrition on the brain, these deficits were associated with lower body mass index in the AN sample and were less severe in partially weight-restored patients – implying that, with appropriate early treatment and support, the brain might be able to repair itself, the investigators note.
“This really is a wake-up call, showing the need for early interventions for people with eating disorders,” Paul Thompson, PhD, author and lead scientist for the ENIGMA Consortium, said in a news release.
“The international scale of this work is extraordinary. Scientists from 22 centers worldwide pooled their brain scans to create the most detailed picture to date of how anorexia affects the brain,” Dr. Thompson added.
“The brain changes in anorexia were more severe than in other any psychiatric condition we have studied. Effects of treatments and interventions can now be evaluated, using these new brain maps as a reference,” he noted.
Immediate clinical implications
Reached for comment, Allison Eliscu, MD, chief of the division of adolescent medicine, department of pediatrics, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said the findings have immediate implications for clinical care.
“When we talk to our patients and the parents, a lot of them focus on things that they can see, such as the way they look. It adds a lot to the conversation to be able to say: You’re obviously not seeing these changes in the brain, but they’re happening and could be potentially long term if you don’t start weight restoring, or if you weight restore and then continue to drop again,” Dr. Eliscu said in an interview.
The findings, she said, really do highlight what anorexia can do to the brain.
“Adolescents need to know, anorexia can absolutely decrease the size of your brain in different areas; you’re not just losing weight in your belly and your thighs, you’re losing weight in the brain as well and that’s really concerning,” said Dr. Eliscu.
The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Eliscu report no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new brain imaging study shows.
The reductions of cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and cortical surface area were “very pronounced in acutely underweight anorexia,” Stefan Ehrlich, MD, PhD, head of the Eating Disorder Treatment and Research Center, Technical University, Dresden, Germany, told this news organization.
Yet even a “partial weight gain brings some normalization of these shrinkages. From this it can be deduced that a fast/early normalization of weight is also very important for brain health,” said Dr. Ehrlich.
The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.
‘A wake-up call’
Researchers with the international ENIGMA Eating Disorders Working Group analyzed T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging scans for nearly 2,000 people with AN (including those in recovery) and healthy controls across 22 sites worldwide.
In the AN sample, reductions in cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and, to a lesser extent, cortical surface area, were “sizable (Cohen’s d up to 0.95), widespread, and co-localized with hub regions,” they report.
These reductions were two and four times larger than the abnormalities in brain size and shape seen in patients with other mental illnesses, the researchers note.
Noting the harmful impact of anorexia-related undernutrition on the brain, these deficits were associated with lower body mass index in the AN sample and were less severe in partially weight-restored patients – implying that, with appropriate early treatment and support, the brain might be able to repair itself, the investigators note.
“This really is a wake-up call, showing the need for early interventions for people with eating disorders,” Paul Thompson, PhD, author and lead scientist for the ENIGMA Consortium, said in a news release.
“The international scale of this work is extraordinary. Scientists from 22 centers worldwide pooled their brain scans to create the most detailed picture to date of how anorexia affects the brain,” Dr. Thompson added.
“The brain changes in anorexia were more severe than in other any psychiatric condition we have studied. Effects of treatments and interventions can now be evaluated, using these new brain maps as a reference,” he noted.
Immediate clinical implications
Reached for comment, Allison Eliscu, MD, chief of the division of adolescent medicine, department of pediatrics, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said the findings have immediate implications for clinical care.
“When we talk to our patients and the parents, a lot of them focus on things that they can see, such as the way they look. It adds a lot to the conversation to be able to say: You’re obviously not seeing these changes in the brain, but they’re happening and could be potentially long term if you don’t start weight restoring, or if you weight restore and then continue to drop again,” Dr. Eliscu said in an interview.
The findings, she said, really do highlight what anorexia can do to the brain.
“Adolescents need to know, anorexia can absolutely decrease the size of your brain in different areas; you’re not just losing weight in your belly and your thighs, you’re losing weight in the brain as well and that’s really concerning,” said Dr. Eliscu.
The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Eliscu report no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
Pandemic stress tied to increased headache burden in teens
Contrary to previous research findings, the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to an increased headache burden in teens.
Investigators found factors contributing to headache for preteens and teens during the pandemic included increased screen time for online learning, depression, anxiety, female sex, and weight gain.
“The stressors and pressures of the pandemic may have eventually taken their toll,” lead author Ayşe Nur Özdağ Acarli, MD, Ermenek State Hospital, department of neurology, Karaman, Turkey, told this news organization.
“Limiting screen time and providing more psychosocial supports would help lessen the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents with headache.”
The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2022.
Most common neurological problem in kids
Headache is the most common neurological problem in children and adolescents. Potential factors contributing to headache in this population include lack of sleep and physical activity, mental health problems, and socioeconomic conditions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a “striking” impact on every aspect of life for young people, said Dr. Acarli.
Some studies reported an improvement in headache prevalence among adolescents during COVID-19, which was attributed to less school-related stress. However, said Dr. Acarli in her personal clinical experience, young patients suffered more frequent and severe headaches during the pandemic.
She noted previous research examining the impact of the pandemic on headache in youth was conducted only in the early days of the pandemic and examined shorter-term effects. Research examining the long-term effects of the pandemic on headache in this patient population has been “lacking,” she said.
The study included 851 participants aged 10-18 years (mean age 14.9 years and 62% female) who were seen at a neurology or pediatric outpatient clinic from August-December 2021. The study excluded subjects with neurological problems, intellectual deficits, autism spectrum disorder, and epilepsy.
Participants completed detailed questionnaires providing data on demographics, exposure to COVID-19, and electronics, as well as information on depressive symptoms as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and anxiety symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and COVID-related anxiety.
“We used two distinct scales for anxiety: one for generalized anxiety and the other for COVID-related anxiety,” said Dr. Acarli.
Of the total study population, 756 (89%) reported headaches. This headache prevalence in children and adolescents is like that found in other studies.
Dr. Acarli noted several differences in the headache group versus the non-headache group. The female/male ratio was 2:1 versus 1:1, the mean age was 15.0 versus 14.4, and depression and generalized anxiety scores were significantly higher. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 history in those with and without headache.
Researchers categorized those with headache into four groups: worsening headaches (27%), improved headaches (3%), new onset headaches (10%), and stable headaches (61%).
Compared with the other groups, the worsened headache group included significantly more females and older individuals with more severe and frequent headaches. This group also had more participants reporting at least 15 headache attacks a month and using painkillers at least once a month.
The study showed headache severity was significantly increased with age, headache duration, depression, generalized anxiety (all P < .001), and COVID-19 anxiety (P < .01). Headache frequency, measured as attacks per month, was significantly increased with age, depression, and generalized anxiety (all P < .001).
Worsening headache outcomes during the pandemic were associated with longer exposure to computer screens (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.3; P < .01), lack of suitable conditions for online learning (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8; P < .001), depression (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .001); and COVID-19 anxiety (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; P < .01). Other contributing factors included school exams, living in a city, female sex, and weight gain.
There may be a link between COVID-related headaches and anxiety or depression, but it’s unclear what’s causing what. “We don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg,” said Dr. Acarli.
Headache triggers
Commenting for this news organization, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal, who co-chaired the session where the research was presented, said the information collected for the study was “extensive.”
Some results were expected, including the fact that patients with headaches were more anxious and depressed, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.
“Anxiety and depression are frequent comorbidities of headache and can act as a triggering factor for headache attacks but can also be a consequence of intense or chronic pain,” she said.
She agreed the new results differ from those of studies carried out during the first pandemic lockdown, which showed an improvement in headache, but noted online learning was not fully implemented at that time, “so it was much like being on vacation.”
In addition to isolation, anxiety, and prolonged screen exposure, the lack of peer contact and fewer sports and leisure activities may also have contributed to worsening headaches during the COVID lockdown, but these were not explored in this study, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.
The study was supported by the Global Migraine and Pain Society. The investigators and Dr. Gil-Gouveia report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Contrary to previous research findings, the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to an increased headache burden in teens.
Investigators found factors contributing to headache for preteens and teens during the pandemic included increased screen time for online learning, depression, anxiety, female sex, and weight gain.
“The stressors and pressures of the pandemic may have eventually taken their toll,” lead author Ayşe Nur Özdağ Acarli, MD, Ermenek State Hospital, department of neurology, Karaman, Turkey, told this news organization.
“Limiting screen time and providing more psychosocial supports would help lessen the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents with headache.”
The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2022.
Most common neurological problem in kids
Headache is the most common neurological problem in children and adolescents. Potential factors contributing to headache in this population include lack of sleep and physical activity, mental health problems, and socioeconomic conditions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a “striking” impact on every aspect of life for young people, said Dr. Acarli.
Some studies reported an improvement in headache prevalence among adolescents during COVID-19, which was attributed to less school-related stress. However, said Dr. Acarli in her personal clinical experience, young patients suffered more frequent and severe headaches during the pandemic.
She noted previous research examining the impact of the pandemic on headache in youth was conducted only in the early days of the pandemic and examined shorter-term effects. Research examining the long-term effects of the pandemic on headache in this patient population has been “lacking,” she said.
The study included 851 participants aged 10-18 years (mean age 14.9 years and 62% female) who were seen at a neurology or pediatric outpatient clinic from August-December 2021. The study excluded subjects with neurological problems, intellectual deficits, autism spectrum disorder, and epilepsy.
Participants completed detailed questionnaires providing data on demographics, exposure to COVID-19, and electronics, as well as information on depressive symptoms as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and anxiety symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and COVID-related anxiety.
“We used two distinct scales for anxiety: one for generalized anxiety and the other for COVID-related anxiety,” said Dr. Acarli.
Of the total study population, 756 (89%) reported headaches. This headache prevalence in children and adolescents is like that found in other studies.
Dr. Acarli noted several differences in the headache group versus the non-headache group. The female/male ratio was 2:1 versus 1:1, the mean age was 15.0 versus 14.4, and depression and generalized anxiety scores were significantly higher. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 history in those with and without headache.
Researchers categorized those with headache into four groups: worsening headaches (27%), improved headaches (3%), new onset headaches (10%), and stable headaches (61%).
Compared with the other groups, the worsened headache group included significantly more females and older individuals with more severe and frequent headaches. This group also had more participants reporting at least 15 headache attacks a month and using painkillers at least once a month.
The study showed headache severity was significantly increased with age, headache duration, depression, generalized anxiety (all P < .001), and COVID-19 anxiety (P < .01). Headache frequency, measured as attacks per month, was significantly increased with age, depression, and generalized anxiety (all P < .001).
Worsening headache outcomes during the pandemic were associated with longer exposure to computer screens (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.3; P < .01), lack of suitable conditions for online learning (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8; P < .001), depression (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .001); and COVID-19 anxiety (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; P < .01). Other contributing factors included school exams, living in a city, female sex, and weight gain.
There may be a link between COVID-related headaches and anxiety or depression, but it’s unclear what’s causing what. “We don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg,” said Dr. Acarli.
Headache triggers
Commenting for this news organization, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal, who co-chaired the session where the research was presented, said the information collected for the study was “extensive.”
Some results were expected, including the fact that patients with headaches were more anxious and depressed, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.
“Anxiety and depression are frequent comorbidities of headache and can act as a triggering factor for headache attacks but can also be a consequence of intense or chronic pain,” she said.
She agreed the new results differ from those of studies carried out during the first pandemic lockdown, which showed an improvement in headache, but noted online learning was not fully implemented at that time, “so it was much like being on vacation.”
In addition to isolation, anxiety, and prolonged screen exposure, the lack of peer contact and fewer sports and leisure activities may also have contributed to worsening headaches during the COVID lockdown, but these were not explored in this study, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.
The study was supported by the Global Migraine and Pain Society. The investigators and Dr. Gil-Gouveia report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Contrary to previous research findings, the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to an increased headache burden in teens.
Investigators found factors contributing to headache for preteens and teens during the pandemic included increased screen time for online learning, depression, anxiety, female sex, and weight gain.
“The stressors and pressures of the pandemic may have eventually taken their toll,” lead author Ayşe Nur Özdağ Acarli, MD, Ermenek State Hospital, department of neurology, Karaman, Turkey, told this news organization.
“Limiting screen time and providing more psychosocial supports would help lessen the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents with headache.”
The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2022.
Most common neurological problem in kids
Headache is the most common neurological problem in children and adolescents. Potential factors contributing to headache in this population include lack of sleep and physical activity, mental health problems, and socioeconomic conditions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a “striking” impact on every aspect of life for young people, said Dr. Acarli.
Some studies reported an improvement in headache prevalence among adolescents during COVID-19, which was attributed to less school-related stress. However, said Dr. Acarli in her personal clinical experience, young patients suffered more frequent and severe headaches during the pandemic.
She noted previous research examining the impact of the pandemic on headache in youth was conducted only in the early days of the pandemic and examined shorter-term effects. Research examining the long-term effects of the pandemic on headache in this patient population has been “lacking,” she said.
The study included 851 participants aged 10-18 years (mean age 14.9 years and 62% female) who were seen at a neurology or pediatric outpatient clinic from August-December 2021. The study excluded subjects with neurological problems, intellectual deficits, autism spectrum disorder, and epilepsy.
Participants completed detailed questionnaires providing data on demographics, exposure to COVID-19, and electronics, as well as information on depressive symptoms as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and anxiety symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and COVID-related anxiety.
“We used two distinct scales for anxiety: one for generalized anxiety and the other for COVID-related anxiety,” said Dr. Acarli.
Of the total study population, 756 (89%) reported headaches. This headache prevalence in children and adolescents is like that found in other studies.
Dr. Acarli noted several differences in the headache group versus the non-headache group. The female/male ratio was 2:1 versus 1:1, the mean age was 15.0 versus 14.4, and depression and generalized anxiety scores were significantly higher. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 history in those with and without headache.
Researchers categorized those with headache into four groups: worsening headaches (27%), improved headaches (3%), new onset headaches (10%), and stable headaches (61%).
Compared with the other groups, the worsened headache group included significantly more females and older individuals with more severe and frequent headaches. This group also had more participants reporting at least 15 headache attacks a month and using painkillers at least once a month.
The study showed headache severity was significantly increased with age, headache duration, depression, generalized anxiety (all P < .001), and COVID-19 anxiety (P < .01). Headache frequency, measured as attacks per month, was significantly increased with age, depression, and generalized anxiety (all P < .001).
Worsening headache outcomes during the pandemic were associated with longer exposure to computer screens (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.3; P < .01), lack of suitable conditions for online learning (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8; P < .001), depression (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .001); and COVID-19 anxiety (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; P < .01). Other contributing factors included school exams, living in a city, female sex, and weight gain.
There may be a link between COVID-related headaches and anxiety or depression, but it’s unclear what’s causing what. “We don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg,” said Dr. Acarli.
Headache triggers
Commenting for this news organization, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal, who co-chaired the session where the research was presented, said the information collected for the study was “extensive.”
Some results were expected, including the fact that patients with headaches were more anxious and depressed, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.
“Anxiety and depression are frequent comorbidities of headache and can act as a triggering factor for headache attacks but can also be a consequence of intense or chronic pain,” she said.
She agreed the new results differ from those of studies carried out during the first pandemic lockdown, which showed an improvement in headache, but noted online learning was not fully implemented at that time, “so it was much like being on vacation.”
In addition to isolation, anxiety, and prolonged screen exposure, the lack of peer contact and fewer sports and leisure activities may also have contributed to worsening headaches during the COVID lockdown, but these were not explored in this study, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.
The study was supported by the Global Migraine and Pain Society. The investigators and Dr. Gil-Gouveia report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EAN 2022
FDA unveils 5-year plan for ALS and other neurodegenerative diseases
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.
“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.
“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.
“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward
The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.
The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.
Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.
The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.
The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Acupuncture deep needling technique points to greater tension headache relief
(TTH), new research suggests. Result of a randomized trial showed that though the majority of participants reported some relief from TTH after 8 weeks of acupuncture treatment, those who received needling at a depth of 12.5-20.0 mm reported the greatest reduction in headache frequency and severity.
At this depth, acupuncture promotes deqi sensation, a feeling of numbness, soreness, heaviness, or irritating pain in the needling site that is considered key to successful acupuncture treatment in traditional Chinese acupuncture theory.
“Our study showed that deqi sensation could enhance the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic TTH, and the effect of acupuncture lasted at least 6 months when the treatment was stopped,” said co-investigator Ying Li, MD, PhD, The Third Hospital/Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Deqi sensation key
TTH is the most common type of headache, with a lifetime prevalence of up to 78% in some studies. The pain is often described as throbbing or a vice-like tightness on both sides of the head. TTH is considered chronic when it occurs at least 15 days a month.
Previous studies have suggested that acupuncture can offer relief from headache pain, but specific information on TTH, especially chronic TTH, has been lacking.
To address the issue, researchers designed a parallel-design, patient-and-assessor blinded randomized controlled trial with 218 individuals with a history of chronic TTH. All were untreated with prophylactic treatment in the previous 3 months.
The treatment group (n = 110) received 20 sessions of true acupuncture (TA) over 8 weeks. This included three sessions per week in the first 4 weeks and two sessions per week in the last 4 weeks. The depth of needling at each point ranged from 12.5 to 20 mm, which is needed to achieve deqi sensation.
The control group (n = 108) received superficial acupuncture (SA) on the same schedule as the TA group and at traditional acupuncture points. However, this was done at a maximum depth of 2 mm, which is not deep enough for deqi sensation.
At week 16, 68.2% of the participants receiving TA reported a greater than 50% reduction in monthly headache days, compared with 48.1% of those receiving SA (odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).
Mean monthly headache days decreased from 20.38 days at baseline to 7.48 days at week 32 in the TA group versus 22.6 days at baseline to 11.94 days in the SA group.
Headache intensity and severity decreased in both groups, although those who achieved deqi sensation reported the most improvement.
Only four patients reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and none requiring treatment.
Patients in both groups reported some pain relief, suggesting that those who are not comfortable with deqi sensation may still benefit from superficial acupuncture, although to a lesser extent, Dr. Li said.
“We assume that the point-specific effect and placebo effect were combined to give the patients relief of headaches,” Dr. Li added. “Further, the effect of deqi sensation added more treatment effect. This might be explained by gate-control theory or other unknown mechanisms.”
Deeper understanding?
Commenting on the research, Jennifer Bickel, MD, a senior member of neurology at Moffit Cancer Center and professor of oncologic sciences at University of South Florida, Tampa, said that the study provides a deeper understanding of acupuncture’s efficacy for chronic TTH, which could aid clinicians who are unfamiliar with the therapy or when and how to refer treatment.
“This study provides a more descriptive outline for what type of acupuncture treatment and duration can be effective for patients so doctors can prep patients on what to expect and so doctors can better assess if patients received appropriate acupuncture for their headaches,” said Dr. Bickel, who was not involved with the research.
However, she noted that the acupuncture sites and techniques did not vary during the trial. Although that makes sense for a controlled study, it may not reflect real-world clinical practice, she added.
“The downside is that the study didn’t fully reflect that most acupuncturists in clinical practice would alter treatments during the 20 sessions based on the patient’s response and accompanying symptoms or comorbidities,” Dr. Bickel said.
The study also lacked information on medication overuse headache or patients’ prior history of TTH treatments.
“This could be helpful to understand which patients in clinical practice are most likely to benefit from treatment,” Dr. Bickel said.
Study authors received funding from the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Li, Dr. Bickel, and Dr. Vickers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(TTH), new research suggests. Result of a randomized trial showed that though the majority of participants reported some relief from TTH after 8 weeks of acupuncture treatment, those who received needling at a depth of 12.5-20.0 mm reported the greatest reduction in headache frequency and severity.
At this depth, acupuncture promotes deqi sensation, a feeling of numbness, soreness, heaviness, or irritating pain in the needling site that is considered key to successful acupuncture treatment in traditional Chinese acupuncture theory.
“Our study showed that deqi sensation could enhance the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic TTH, and the effect of acupuncture lasted at least 6 months when the treatment was stopped,” said co-investigator Ying Li, MD, PhD, The Third Hospital/Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Deqi sensation key
TTH is the most common type of headache, with a lifetime prevalence of up to 78% in some studies. The pain is often described as throbbing or a vice-like tightness on both sides of the head. TTH is considered chronic when it occurs at least 15 days a month.
Previous studies have suggested that acupuncture can offer relief from headache pain, but specific information on TTH, especially chronic TTH, has been lacking.
To address the issue, researchers designed a parallel-design, patient-and-assessor blinded randomized controlled trial with 218 individuals with a history of chronic TTH. All were untreated with prophylactic treatment in the previous 3 months.
The treatment group (n = 110) received 20 sessions of true acupuncture (TA) over 8 weeks. This included three sessions per week in the first 4 weeks and two sessions per week in the last 4 weeks. The depth of needling at each point ranged from 12.5 to 20 mm, which is needed to achieve deqi sensation.
The control group (n = 108) received superficial acupuncture (SA) on the same schedule as the TA group and at traditional acupuncture points. However, this was done at a maximum depth of 2 mm, which is not deep enough for deqi sensation.
At week 16, 68.2% of the participants receiving TA reported a greater than 50% reduction in monthly headache days, compared with 48.1% of those receiving SA (odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).
Mean monthly headache days decreased from 20.38 days at baseline to 7.48 days at week 32 in the TA group versus 22.6 days at baseline to 11.94 days in the SA group.
Headache intensity and severity decreased in both groups, although those who achieved deqi sensation reported the most improvement.
Only four patients reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and none requiring treatment.
Patients in both groups reported some pain relief, suggesting that those who are not comfortable with deqi sensation may still benefit from superficial acupuncture, although to a lesser extent, Dr. Li said.
“We assume that the point-specific effect and placebo effect were combined to give the patients relief of headaches,” Dr. Li added. “Further, the effect of deqi sensation added more treatment effect. This might be explained by gate-control theory or other unknown mechanisms.”
Deeper understanding?
Commenting on the research, Jennifer Bickel, MD, a senior member of neurology at Moffit Cancer Center and professor of oncologic sciences at University of South Florida, Tampa, said that the study provides a deeper understanding of acupuncture’s efficacy for chronic TTH, which could aid clinicians who are unfamiliar with the therapy or when and how to refer treatment.
“This study provides a more descriptive outline for what type of acupuncture treatment and duration can be effective for patients so doctors can prep patients on what to expect and so doctors can better assess if patients received appropriate acupuncture for their headaches,” said Dr. Bickel, who was not involved with the research.
However, she noted that the acupuncture sites and techniques did not vary during the trial. Although that makes sense for a controlled study, it may not reflect real-world clinical practice, she added.
“The downside is that the study didn’t fully reflect that most acupuncturists in clinical practice would alter treatments during the 20 sessions based on the patient’s response and accompanying symptoms or comorbidities,” Dr. Bickel said.
The study also lacked information on medication overuse headache or patients’ prior history of TTH treatments.
“This could be helpful to understand which patients in clinical practice are most likely to benefit from treatment,” Dr. Bickel said.
Study authors received funding from the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Li, Dr. Bickel, and Dr. Vickers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(TTH), new research suggests. Result of a randomized trial showed that though the majority of participants reported some relief from TTH after 8 weeks of acupuncture treatment, those who received needling at a depth of 12.5-20.0 mm reported the greatest reduction in headache frequency and severity.
At this depth, acupuncture promotes deqi sensation, a feeling of numbness, soreness, heaviness, or irritating pain in the needling site that is considered key to successful acupuncture treatment in traditional Chinese acupuncture theory.
“Our study showed that deqi sensation could enhance the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic TTH, and the effect of acupuncture lasted at least 6 months when the treatment was stopped,” said co-investigator Ying Li, MD, PhD, The Third Hospital/Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Deqi sensation key
TTH is the most common type of headache, with a lifetime prevalence of up to 78% in some studies. The pain is often described as throbbing or a vice-like tightness on both sides of the head. TTH is considered chronic when it occurs at least 15 days a month.
Previous studies have suggested that acupuncture can offer relief from headache pain, but specific information on TTH, especially chronic TTH, has been lacking.
To address the issue, researchers designed a parallel-design, patient-and-assessor blinded randomized controlled trial with 218 individuals with a history of chronic TTH. All were untreated with prophylactic treatment in the previous 3 months.
The treatment group (n = 110) received 20 sessions of true acupuncture (TA) over 8 weeks. This included three sessions per week in the first 4 weeks and two sessions per week in the last 4 weeks. The depth of needling at each point ranged from 12.5 to 20 mm, which is needed to achieve deqi sensation.
The control group (n = 108) received superficial acupuncture (SA) on the same schedule as the TA group and at traditional acupuncture points. However, this was done at a maximum depth of 2 mm, which is not deep enough for deqi sensation.
At week 16, 68.2% of the participants receiving TA reported a greater than 50% reduction in monthly headache days, compared with 48.1% of those receiving SA (odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).
Mean monthly headache days decreased from 20.38 days at baseline to 7.48 days at week 32 in the TA group versus 22.6 days at baseline to 11.94 days in the SA group.
Headache intensity and severity decreased in both groups, although those who achieved deqi sensation reported the most improvement.
Only four patients reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and none requiring treatment.
Patients in both groups reported some pain relief, suggesting that those who are not comfortable with deqi sensation may still benefit from superficial acupuncture, although to a lesser extent, Dr. Li said.
“We assume that the point-specific effect and placebo effect were combined to give the patients relief of headaches,” Dr. Li added. “Further, the effect of deqi sensation added more treatment effect. This might be explained by gate-control theory or other unknown mechanisms.”
Deeper understanding?
Commenting on the research, Jennifer Bickel, MD, a senior member of neurology at Moffit Cancer Center and professor of oncologic sciences at University of South Florida, Tampa, said that the study provides a deeper understanding of acupuncture’s efficacy for chronic TTH, which could aid clinicians who are unfamiliar with the therapy or when and how to refer treatment.
“This study provides a more descriptive outline for what type of acupuncture treatment and duration can be effective for patients so doctors can prep patients on what to expect and so doctors can better assess if patients received appropriate acupuncture for their headaches,” said Dr. Bickel, who was not involved with the research.
However, she noted that the acupuncture sites and techniques did not vary during the trial. Although that makes sense for a controlled study, it may not reflect real-world clinical practice, she added.
“The downside is that the study didn’t fully reflect that most acupuncturists in clinical practice would alter treatments during the 20 sessions based on the patient’s response and accompanying symptoms or comorbidities,” Dr. Bickel said.
The study also lacked information on medication overuse headache or patients’ prior history of TTH treatments.
“This could be helpful to understand which patients in clinical practice are most likely to benefit from treatment,” Dr. Bickel said.
Study authors received funding from the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Li, Dr. Bickel, and Dr. Vickers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Add AFib to noncardiac surgery risk evaluation: New support
Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.
But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.
Indeed, AFib emerged as a significant, independent risk factor for a number of bad postoperative outcomes. Mortality within a month of the procedure climbed about 30% for patients with AFib before the noncardiac surgery. Their 30-day risks for stroke and for heart failure hospitalization went up similarly.
The addition of AFib to the RCRI significantly improved its ability to discriminate 30-day postoperative risk levels regardless of age, sex, and type of noncardiac surgery, Amgad Mentias, MD, Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. And “it was able to correctly up-classify patients to high risk, if AFib was there, and it was able to down-classify some patients to lower risk if it wasn’t there.”
“I think [the findings] are convincing evidence that atrial fib should at least be part of the thought process for the surgical team and the medical team taking care of the patient,” said Dr. Mentias, who is senior author on the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with lead author Sameer Prasada, MD, also of the Cleveland Clinic.
The results “call for incorporating AFib as a risk factor in perioperative risk scores for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” the published report states.
Supraventricular arrhythmias had been part of the Goldman Risk Index once widely used preoperatively to assess cardiac risk before practice adopted the RCRI in the past decade, observe Anne B. Curtis, MD, and Sai Krishna C. Korada, MD, University at Buffalo, New York, in an accompanying editorial.
The current findings “demonstrate improved prediction of adverse postsurgical outcomes” from supplementing the RCRI with AFib, they write. Given associations between preexisting AFib and serious cardiac events, “it is time to ‘re-revise’ the RCRI and acknowledge the importance of AFib in predicting adverse outcomes” after noncardiac surgery.
The new findings, however, aren’t all straightforward. In one result that remains a bit of a head-scratcher, postoperative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with preexisting AFib went in the opposite direction of risk for death and other CV outcomes, falling by almost 20%.
That is “hard to explain with the available data,” the report states, but “the use of anticoagulation, whether oral or parenteral (as a bridge therapy in the perioperative period), is a plausible explanation” given the frequent role of thrombosis in triggering MIs.
Consistent with such a mechanism, the group argues, the MI risk reduction was seen primarily among patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or higher – that is, those at highest risk for stroke and therefore most likely to be on oral anticoagulation. The MI risk reduction wasn’t seen in such patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1.
“I think that’s part of the explanation, that anticoagulation can reduce risk of MI. But it’s not the whole explanation,” Dr. Mentias said in an interview. If it were the sole mechanism, he said, then the same oral anticoagulation that protected against MI should have also cut the postoperative stroke risk. Yet that risk climbed 40% among patients with preexisting AFib.
The analysis started with 8.6 million Medicare patients with planned noncardiac surgery, seen from 2015 to 2019, of whom 16.4% had preexisting AFib. Propensity matching for demographics, urgency and type of surgery, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and RCRI index created two cohorts for comparison: 1.13 million patients with and 1.92 million without preexisting AFib.
Preexisting AFib was associated with a higher 30-day risk for death from any cause, the primary endpoint being 8.3% versus 5.8% for those without such AFib (P < .001), for an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.32).
Corresponding 30-day ORs for other events, all significant at P < .001, were:
- 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
- 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
- 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
- 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding
- 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI
Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).
The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.
For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.
“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”
Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.
But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.
Indeed, AFib emerged as a significant, independent risk factor for a number of bad postoperative outcomes. Mortality within a month of the procedure climbed about 30% for patients with AFib before the noncardiac surgery. Their 30-day risks for stroke and for heart failure hospitalization went up similarly.
The addition of AFib to the RCRI significantly improved its ability to discriminate 30-day postoperative risk levels regardless of age, sex, and type of noncardiac surgery, Amgad Mentias, MD, Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. And “it was able to correctly up-classify patients to high risk, if AFib was there, and it was able to down-classify some patients to lower risk if it wasn’t there.”
“I think [the findings] are convincing evidence that atrial fib should at least be part of the thought process for the surgical team and the medical team taking care of the patient,” said Dr. Mentias, who is senior author on the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with lead author Sameer Prasada, MD, also of the Cleveland Clinic.
The results “call for incorporating AFib as a risk factor in perioperative risk scores for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” the published report states.
Supraventricular arrhythmias had been part of the Goldman Risk Index once widely used preoperatively to assess cardiac risk before practice adopted the RCRI in the past decade, observe Anne B. Curtis, MD, and Sai Krishna C. Korada, MD, University at Buffalo, New York, in an accompanying editorial.
The current findings “demonstrate improved prediction of adverse postsurgical outcomes” from supplementing the RCRI with AFib, they write. Given associations between preexisting AFib and serious cardiac events, “it is time to ‘re-revise’ the RCRI and acknowledge the importance of AFib in predicting adverse outcomes” after noncardiac surgery.
The new findings, however, aren’t all straightforward. In one result that remains a bit of a head-scratcher, postoperative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with preexisting AFib went in the opposite direction of risk for death and other CV outcomes, falling by almost 20%.
That is “hard to explain with the available data,” the report states, but “the use of anticoagulation, whether oral or parenteral (as a bridge therapy in the perioperative period), is a plausible explanation” given the frequent role of thrombosis in triggering MIs.
Consistent with such a mechanism, the group argues, the MI risk reduction was seen primarily among patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or higher – that is, those at highest risk for stroke and therefore most likely to be on oral anticoagulation. The MI risk reduction wasn’t seen in such patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1.
“I think that’s part of the explanation, that anticoagulation can reduce risk of MI. But it’s not the whole explanation,” Dr. Mentias said in an interview. If it were the sole mechanism, he said, then the same oral anticoagulation that protected against MI should have also cut the postoperative stroke risk. Yet that risk climbed 40% among patients with preexisting AFib.
The analysis started with 8.6 million Medicare patients with planned noncardiac surgery, seen from 2015 to 2019, of whom 16.4% had preexisting AFib. Propensity matching for demographics, urgency and type of surgery, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and RCRI index created two cohorts for comparison: 1.13 million patients with and 1.92 million without preexisting AFib.
Preexisting AFib was associated with a higher 30-day risk for death from any cause, the primary endpoint being 8.3% versus 5.8% for those without such AFib (P < .001), for an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.32).
Corresponding 30-day ORs for other events, all significant at P < .001, were:
- 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
- 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
- 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
- 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding
- 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI
Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).
The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.
For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.
“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”
Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.
But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.
Indeed, AFib emerged as a significant, independent risk factor for a number of bad postoperative outcomes. Mortality within a month of the procedure climbed about 30% for patients with AFib before the noncardiac surgery. Their 30-day risks for stroke and for heart failure hospitalization went up similarly.
The addition of AFib to the RCRI significantly improved its ability to discriminate 30-day postoperative risk levels regardless of age, sex, and type of noncardiac surgery, Amgad Mentias, MD, Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. And “it was able to correctly up-classify patients to high risk, if AFib was there, and it was able to down-classify some patients to lower risk if it wasn’t there.”
“I think [the findings] are convincing evidence that atrial fib should at least be part of the thought process for the surgical team and the medical team taking care of the patient,” said Dr. Mentias, who is senior author on the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with lead author Sameer Prasada, MD, also of the Cleveland Clinic.
The results “call for incorporating AFib as a risk factor in perioperative risk scores for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” the published report states.
Supraventricular arrhythmias had been part of the Goldman Risk Index once widely used preoperatively to assess cardiac risk before practice adopted the RCRI in the past decade, observe Anne B. Curtis, MD, and Sai Krishna C. Korada, MD, University at Buffalo, New York, in an accompanying editorial.
The current findings “demonstrate improved prediction of adverse postsurgical outcomes” from supplementing the RCRI with AFib, they write. Given associations between preexisting AFib and serious cardiac events, “it is time to ‘re-revise’ the RCRI and acknowledge the importance of AFib in predicting adverse outcomes” after noncardiac surgery.
The new findings, however, aren’t all straightforward. In one result that remains a bit of a head-scratcher, postoperative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with preexisting AFib went in the opposite direction of risk for death and other CV outcomes, falling by almost 20%.
That is “hard to explain with the available data,” the report states, but “the use of anticoagulation, whether oral or parenteral (as a bridge therapy in the perioperative period), is a plausible explanation” given the frequent role of thrombosis in triggering MIs.
Consistent with such a mechanism, the group argues, the MI risk reduction was seen primarily among patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or higher – that is, those at highest risk for stroke and therefore most likely to be on oral anticoagulation. The MI risk reduction wasn’t seen in such patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1.
“I think that’s part of the explanation, that anticoagulation can reduce risk of MI. But it’s not the whole explanation,” Dr. Mentias said in an interview. If it were the sole mechanism, he said, then the same oral anticoagulation that protected against MI should have also cut the postoperative stroke risk. Yet that risk climbed 40% among patients with preexisting AFib.
The analysis started with 8.6 million Medicare patients with planned noncardiac surgery, seen from 2015 to 2019, of whom 16.4% had preexisting AFib. Propensity matching for demographics, urgency and type of surgery, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and RCRI index created two cohorts for comparison: 1.13 million patients with and 1.92 million without preexisting AFib.
Preexisting AFib was associated with a higher 30-day risk for death from any cause, the primary endpoint being 8.3% versus 5.8% for those without such AFib (P < .001), for an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.32).
Corresponding 30-day ORs for other events, all significant at P < .001, were:
- 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
- 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
- 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
- 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding
- 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI
Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).
The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.
For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.
“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”
Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Migraine-related stigma is common and underappreciated
, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”
Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.
“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Population-based research
Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.
OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.
The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.
Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:
- Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
- Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
- Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
- Migraine-Related Stigma
For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
One of the most stigmatizing disorders
Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”
Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.
However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.
“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.
Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.
One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”
Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
Large impact on QoL
“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.
Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.
Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.
He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.
Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.
In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
‘Worrisome’ findings
Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”
Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.
She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.
In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.
“That’s a huge problem,” she added.
The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”
Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.
“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Population-based research
Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.
OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.
The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.
Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:
- Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
- Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
- Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
- Migraine-Related Stigma
For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
One of the most stigmatizing disorders
Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”
Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.
However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.
“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.
Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.
One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”
Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
Large impact on QoL
“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.
Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.
Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.
He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.
Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.
In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
‘Worrisome’ findings
Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”
Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.
She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.
In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.
“That’s a huge problem,” she added.
The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”
Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.
“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Population-based research
Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.
OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.
The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.
Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:
- Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
- Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
- Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
- Migraine-Related Stigma
For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
One of the most stigmatizing disorders
Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”
Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.
However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.
“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.
Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.
One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”
Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
Large impact on QoL
“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.
Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.
Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.
He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.
Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.
In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
‘Worrisome’ findings
Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”
Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.
She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.
In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.
“That’s a huge problem,” she added.
The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2022
Autoimmune disorder drugs top list of meds linked to headache
DENVER – in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.
Drugs most frequently linked to headaches
The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”
After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.
The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).
Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.
“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
Is the data useful?
Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.
“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”
When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.
No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
DENVER – in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.
Drugs most frequently linked to headaches
The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”
After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.
The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).
Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.
“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
Is the data useful?
Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.
“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”
When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.
No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
DENVER – in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.
Drugs most frequently linked to headaches
The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”
After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.
The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).
Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.
“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
Is the data useful?
Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.
“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”
When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.
No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
AT AHS 2022
Recommended headache treatments get mixed reception in EDs
DENVER – a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.
From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.
“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.
Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
Headache treatment in the ED
For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.
For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).
In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.
Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.
Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).
“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”
Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”
As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
Evidence-based treatments underutilized
Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”
As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
Overuse of neuroimaging
Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”
For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”
The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.
DENVER – a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.
From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.
“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.
Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
Headache treatment in the ED
For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.
For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).
In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.
Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.
Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).
“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”
Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”
As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
Evidence-based treatments underutilized
Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”
As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
Overuse of neuroimaging
Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”
For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”
The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.
DENVER – a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.
From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.
“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.
Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
Headache treatment in the ED
For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.
For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).
In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.
Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.
Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).
“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”
Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”
As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
Evidence-based treatments underutilized
Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”
As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
Overuse of neuroimaging
Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”
For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”
The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.
AT AHS 2022
COVID vaccination in DMT-treated MS patients: New data
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.
However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.
One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.
Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).
Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
Vaccine response
The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.
The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).
The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.
Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.
“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.
“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.
Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.
“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.
He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”
That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.
“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
Favorable findings
Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.
The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.
“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.
In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.
To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.
Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.
“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
Ponesimod results
In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.
The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.
Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.
Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.
A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.
None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.
“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.
“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.
In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.
“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
Concerns remain
In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.
“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.
“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.
Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”
Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.
“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.
Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.
However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.
One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.
Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).
Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
Vaccine response
The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.
The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).
The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.
Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.
“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.
“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.
Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.
“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.
He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”
That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.
“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
Favorable findings
Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.
The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.
“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.
In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.
To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.
Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.
“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
Ponesimod results
In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.
The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.
Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.
Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.
A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.
None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.
“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.
“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.
In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.
“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
Concerns remain
In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.
“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.
“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.
Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”
Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.
“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.
Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The latest updates on COVID-19 vaccination response among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT) show that, if patients do contract the virus, cases are mild and serious infections are rare.
However, vaccine antibody response remains lower with anti-CD20 therapies.
One of several late-breaking studies on these issues that were presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers included more than 100 patients with MS who were treated with a variety of DMTs.
Results showed that the rate of antibody response was just 55% among those treated with anti-CD20 therapies versus 83% for those treated with other DMTs, including sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators (S1Ps).
Consistent with what has been observed in other studies, “vaccine antibody responses were slightly lower in B cell–depleted patients than with other therapies,” senior author Rahul Dave, MD, director of the INOVA MS and Neuroimmunology Center, Inova Neurosciences Institute, the University of Virginia, Fairfax, said in an interview.
Vaccine response
The investigators sought to assess detailed vaccine responses in 134 patients with MS. Serum COVID antibody measures were conducted approximately 3 weeks to 4 months after vaccination – and mostly after the initial vaccination.
The antibody response rate was significantly lower with anti-CD20 treatments (55%) than with all other DMTs examined (83%), including S1Ps, immunomodulators, immunosuppressive drugs, interferon B, anti-CD52, and natalizumab (P < .01).
The highest prevalence of antibody response was observed among those taking immunomodulators; responses occurred among 91% of patients taking teriflunomide and among 93% of those taking fumarates.
Among those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, antibody responses correlated with higher baseline immunoglobulin levels (P = .01) and shorter durations of therapy.
“We found that longer total duration of therapy and lower immunoglobulin levels tended to correlate with decreases in immune responses,” said Dr. Dave.
“Interestingly, the timing between vaccination versus administration of [anti-CD20 drug] ocrelizumab did not seem to be impactful with regards to antibody responses,” Dr. Dave noted. He added that this is contrary to some past studies that showed benefits if the vaccination could be completed prior to starting ocrelizumab.
Sixteen participants tested polymerase chain reaction positive for COVID during the previous 12 months. Although most infections were described as mild and self-limited, four of the patients received outpatient monoclonal antibody therapy, and one required hospitalization because of COVID.
“I think it is notable and reassuring that, overall, our patients had mild courses. This is consistent with the vaccines ‘working,’ and is true even in patients on high-efficacy immunosuppressants that partially abrogate antibody responses,” Dr. Dave said.
He added that he reassures patients who need high-efficacy therapies that “they should use them.”
That being said, as in the general population, even vaccinated patients can get COVID. “You can be sick and feel terrible, but in general, hospitalization numbers are way down compared to 2 years ago. We are seeing the same trends in MS patients, including the B cell–depleted patients,” he said.
“To get at the question whether B cell–depleted patients behave exactly the same as the general population, or even [with] other DMTs, we will need large, multicenter, prospective datasets,” said Dr. Dave.
Favorable findings
Two other late-breaking posters at the meeting provided updates regarding antibody responses among patients receiving S1Ps. There has been concern that S1Ps may blunt antibody responses to COVID vaccinations.
The concern is in regard to their unique mechanisms of sequestering circulating lymphocytes, particularly the older, nonselective S1P receptor modulator fingolimod, said the author of one of the studies, Daniel Kantor, MD, president emeritus of the Florida Society of Neurology and founding president of the Medical Partnership 4 MS+.
“It appears the issues with fingolimod might relate to the level of white blood cell sequestration, [which is] greater in fingolimod than the newer S1P receptor modulators, and/or the result of S1P4 receptor modulation, which is not seen with the newer, selective medications,” Dr. Kantor said in an interview.
In a prospective observational trial of patients with relapsing MS, among 30 participants who were treated with ozanimod, the mean increase in IgG antibody titer 4 weeks after either of the two available mRNA vaccines was 232.73 AU/mL versus a mean increase of 526.59 AU/mL among 30 non–ozanimod/DMT-treated patients.
To date, only three patients in the study were taking ocrelizumab; for those patients, the mean increase in IgG titers was 0.633.
Despite the lower antibody titers in the ozanimod-treated patients, which Dr. Kantor noted are generally regarded as protective, all but one of the patients had positive results on T-Detect, which was indicative of vaccine protection.
“In this study, [relapsing] MS patients treated with ozanimod had an antibody and T-cell response to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he reported. “This trial is ongoing, with 48 weeks of follow-up expected in December 2022.”
Ponesimod results
In the other S1P modulator-related late-breaking study, Janssen Research and Development reported on antibody responses of patients who were treated with the S1P drug ponesimod in the phase 2 AC-058B202 study.
The median exposure to ponesimod at time of vaccination was 10.7 years (range, 9.8-11.8 years). There were 134 patients in the study. Of those, both prevaccination and postvaccination blood samples from 49 patients were tested for spike antibody concentrations.
Among those participants, 40 (81.6%) met the definition of response to the COVID-19 vaccination, defined as seroconversion in the case of negative prevaccination antibody testing or a fourfold antibody concentration increase in the case of a positive prevaccination antibody result.
Of the 38 antibody-negative participants, 33 (86.8%) achieved seroconversion post vaccination.
A total of 20 participants reported having had prevaccine COVID, while 17 had postvaccination COVID.
None of the cases were serious, severe, or fatal, and none led to permanent treatment discontinuation.
“In patients with RMS on ponesimod, the majority (> 80%) appear to develop a measurable SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors, led by Janice Wong, of Janssen Research and Development, wrote.
“Further investigations on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in MS patients on ponesimod are warranted,” they added.
In a final study from Genentech, of 4848 patients with MS who were fully vaccinated during the Delta and Omicron waves, 1.3% had a COVID-related hospitalization. In addition, rate of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections was very low (0.6%); there were fewer than 10 infections in each subgroup of DMTs. These patients included 585 (17%) who were treated with ocrelizumab, 238 (7%) who were treated with S1P receptor modulators, 33 (1%) who were treated with interferons, 1,004 (29%) who were treated with other DMTs, and 1,574 (46%) for whom no DMTs were recorded.
“We can conclude from this study that the characteristics of people with MS with more severe COVID-19 outcomes resemble those observed in the general population,” such as in those who are older or have higher rates of comorbidities, Preeti Bajaj, team lead of HEOR, Neuroscience, at Genentech, said in an interview. “We believe [ocrelizumab] treatment decisions should be made between a patient and their treating neurologist or other medical professional based on a benefit-risk assessment specific to the individual patient.”
Concerns remain
In a comment, Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology and clinical research director at the Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, described the overall data on vaccine efficacy on anti-CD20s as “discouraging” and said he is adjusting his own recommendations for these patients.
“Repeated vaccinations do not seem to stimulate humoral responses in B cell–depleted patients,” said Dr. Cree, who was not involved with the research.
“In my personal practice, I have been suspending dosing in my patients to allow for B-cell reconstitution to occur followed by revaccination,” he added.
Regarding the S1P drugs, he noted that, aside from fingolimod, “the antibody response frequency seems to be better than initial reports. However, the index values are low and may not be protective.”
Overall, the take-home message for patients with MS who are taking DMTs should be, “all patients treated with S1P modulators or anti-C20 antibodies should be vaccinated and boosted,” Dr. Cree said.
“In some cases, temporary interruption of treatment might be useful to help develop robust responses to vaccinations,” he added.
Dr. Dave reported no financial relationships regarding the poster but is a paid speaker/consultant for Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Biogen, Alexion, Genentech, Horizon, and Sanofi for their MS & NMO therapies. Dr. Kantor’s research was supported by a grant from BMS; he is a consultant for Biogen, BMS, and Janssen. Dr. Cree reported that he is an unpaid consultant for BMS, the manufacturer of ozanimod.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT CMSC 2022