Neurology Reviews

A report by the American Medical Association’s medical education advisory body points to systemic racism or other systems of oppression as causing a lack of representation, exclusion, and marginalization in medical education and medicine.

The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.

The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.

The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.

The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
 

Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity

The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.

In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.

The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.

Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.

Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
 

Pathway programs can increase diversity

Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.

Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.

Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
 

AMA council’s report garners support from delegates

Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”

“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.

Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”

According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A report by the American Medical Association’s medical education advisory body points to systemic racism or other systems of oppression as causing a lack of representation, exclusion, and marginalization in medical education and medicine.

The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.

The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.

The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.

The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
 

Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity

The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.

In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.

The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.

Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.

Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
 

Pathway programs can increase diversity

Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.

Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.

Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
 

AMA council’s report garners support from delegates

Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”

“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.

Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”

According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A report by the American Medical Association’s medical education advisory body points to systemic racism or other systems of oppression as causing a lack of representation, exclusion, and marginalization in medical education and medicine.

The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.

The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.

The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.

The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
 

Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity

The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.

In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.

The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.

Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.

Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
 

Pathway programs can increase diversity

Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.

Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.

Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
 

AMA council’s report garners support from delegates

Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”

“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.

Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”

According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Advances in photobiomodulation have propelled the use of therapeutic applications in a variety of medical specialties, according to Juanita J. Anders, PhD.

During the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Anders, professor of anatomy, physiology, and genetics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., defined photobiomodulation (PBM) as the mechanism by which nonionizing optical radiation in the visible and near-infrared spectral range is absorbed by endogenous chromophores to elicit photophysical and photochemical events at various biological scales. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) involves the use of light sources including lasers, LEDs, and broadband light, that emit visible and/or near-infrared light to cause physiological changes in cells and tissues and result in therapeutic benefits.

In dermatology, LED light therapy devices are commonly used for PBMT in wavelengths that range from blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) to near infrared (830 nm). “Often, when PBMT is referred to by dermatologists it’s called LED therapy or LED light therapy,” Dr. Anders noted. “Some people are under the impression that this is different from PBMT. But remember: It’s not the device that’s producing the photons that is clinically relevant, but it’s the photons themselves. In both cases, the same radiances and fluence ranges are being used and the mechanisms are the same, so it’s all PBMT.”

The therapy is used to treat a wide variety of medical and aesthetic disorders including acne vulgaris, psoriasis, burns, and wound healing. It has also been used in conjunction with surgical aesthetic and resurfacing procedures and has been reported to reduce erythema, edema, bruising, and days to healing. It’s been shown that PBMT stimulates fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and extracellular matrix resulting in lifting and tightening lax skin.

According to Dr. Anders, French dermatologists Linda Fouque, MD, and Michele Pelletier, MD, performed a series of in vivo and in vitro studies in which they tested the effects of yellow and red light for skin rejuvenation when used individually or in combination. “They found that fibroblasts and keratinocytes in vitro had great improvement in their morphology both with the yellow and red light, but the best improvement was seen with combination therapy,” Dr. Anders said. “This held true in their work looking at epidermal and dermal markers in the skin, where they found the best up-regulation in protein synthesis of such markers as collagens and fibronectin were produced when a combination wavelength light was used.”

Oral mucositis and pain

PBMT is also being used to treat oral mucositis (OM), a common adverse response to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, which causes pain, difficulty in swallowing and eating, and oral ulceration, and often interrupts the course of treatments. Authors of a recently published review on the risks and benefits of PBMT concluded that there is consistent evidence from a small number of high-quality studies that PBMT can help prevent the development of cancer therapy–induced OM, reduce pain intensity, as well as promote healing, and enhance patient quality of life.

“They also cautioned that, due to the limited long-term follow-up of patients, there is still concern for the potential long-term risks of PBMT in cancer cell mutation and amplification,” Dr. Anders said. “They advised that PBMT should be used carefully when the irradiation beam is in the direction of the tumor zone.”

Using PBMT for modulation of pain is another area of active research. Based on work from the laboratory of Dr. Anders and others, there are two methods to modulate pain. The first is to target tissue at irradiances below 100 mW/cm².

“In my laboratory, based on in vivo preclinical animal models of neuropathic pain, we used a 980-nm wavelength laser at 43.25 mW/cm² transcutaneously delivered to the level of the nerve for 20 seconds,” said Dr. Anders, who is a past president of the ASLMS. “Essentially, we found that the pain was modulated by reducing sensitivity to mechanical stimulation and also by causing an anti-inflammatory shift in microglial and macrophage phenotype in the dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord of affected segments.”

The second way to modulate pain, she continued, is to target tissue at irradiances above 250 mW/cm². She and her colleagues have conducted in vitro and in vivo studies, which indicate that treatment with an irradiance/fluence rate at 270 mW/cm² or higher at the nerve can rapidly block pain transmission.

“In vitro, we found that if we used an 810-nm wavelength light at 300 mW/cm², we got a disruption of microtubules in the DRG neurons in culture, specifically the small neurons, the nociceptive fibers, but we did not affect the proprioceptive fibers unless we increased the length of the treatment,” she said. “We essentially found the same thing in vivo in a rodent model of neuropathic pain.”

In a pilot study, Dr. Anders and coauthors examined the efficacy of laser irradiation of the dorsal root ganglion of the second lumbar spinal nerve for patients with chronic back pain.

They found that PBMT effectively reduced back pain equal to the effects of lidocaine.

Based on these two irradiation approaches of targeting tissue, Dr. Anders recommends that a combination therapy be used to modulate neuropathic pain going forward. “This approach would involve the initial use of a high-irradiance treatment [at least 250 mW/cm²] at the nerve to block the pain transmission,” she said. “That treatment would be followed by a series of low-irradiance treatments [10-100 mW/cm²] along the course of the involved nerve to alter chronic pathology and inflammation.”
 

Potential applications in neurology

Dr. Anders also discussed research efforts under way involving transcranial PBMT: the delivery of near-infrared light through the tissues of the scalp and skull to targeted brain regions to treat neurologic injuries and disorders. “There have been some exciting results in preclinical animal work and in small clinical pilot work that show that there could be possible beneficial effects in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and improvement in cognition and memory after a brain injury, such as a TBI,” she said.

“Initially, though, there were a lot of questions about whether you could really deliver light to the brain through the scalp. In my laboratory, we used slices of nonfixed brain and found that the sulci within the human brain act as light-wave guides. We used an 808-nm near-infrared wavelength of light, so that the light could penetrate more deeply.” Using nonfixed cadaver heads, where the light was applied at the scalp surface, Dr. Anders and colleagues were able to measure photons down to the depth of 4 cm. “It’s generally agreed now, though, that it’s to a maximum depth of 2.5-3 cm that enough photons are delivered that would cause a beneficial therapeutic effect,” she said.

Dr. Anders disclosed that she has received equipment from LiteCure, grant funding from the Department of Defense, and that she holds advisory board roles with LiteCure and Neurothera. She has also served in leadership roles for the Optical Society and holds intellectual property rights for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Advances in photobiomodulation have propelled the use of therapeutic applications in a variety of medical specialties, according to Juanita J. Anders, PhD.

During the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Anders, professor of anatomy, physiology, and genetics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., defined photobiomodulation (PBM) as the mechanism by which nonionizing optical radiation in the visible and near-infrared spectral range is absorbed by endogenous chromophores to elicit photophysical and photochemical events at various biological scales. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) involves the use of light sources including lasers, LEDs, and broadband light, that emit visible and/or near-infrared light to cause physiological changes in cells and tissues and result in therapeutic benefits.

In dermatology, LED light therapy devices are commonly used for PBMT in wavelengths that range from blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) to near infrared (830 nm). “Often, when PBMT is referred to by dermatologists it’s called LED therapy or LED light therapy,” Dr. Anders noted. “Some people are under the impression that this is different from PBMT. But remember: It’s not the device that’s producing the photons that is clinically relevant, but it’s the photons themselves. In both cases, the same radiances and fluence ranges are being used and the mechanisms are the same, so it’s all PBMT.”

The therapy is used to treat a wide variety of medical and aesthetic disorders including acne vulgaris, psoriasis, burns, and wound healing. It has also been used in conjunction with surgical aesthetic and resurfacing procedures and has been reported to reduce erythema, edema, bruising, and days to healing. It’s been shown that PBMT stimulates fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and extracellular matrix resulting in lifting and tightening lax skin.

According to Dr. Anders, French dermatologists Linda Fouque, MD, and Michele Pelletier, MD, performed a series of in vivo and in vitro studies in which they tested the effects of yellow and red light for skin rejuvenation when used individually or in combination. “They found that fibroblasts and keratinocytes in vitro had great improvement in their morphology both with the yellow and red light, but the best improvement was seen with combination therapy,” Dr. Anders said. “This held true in their work looking at epidermal and dermal markers in the skin, where they found the best up-regulation in protein synthesis of such markers as collagens and fibronectin were produced when a combination wavelength light was used.”

Oral mucositis and pain

PBMT is also being used to treat oral mucositis (OM), a common adverse response to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, which causes pain, difficulty in swallowing and eating, and oral ulceration, and often interrupts the course of treatments. Authors of a recently published review on the risks and benefits of PBMT concluded that there is consistent evidence from a small number of high-quality studies that PBMT can help prevent the development of cancer therapy–induced OM, reduce pain intensity, as well as promote healing, and enhance patient quality of life.

“They also cautioned that, due to the limited long-term follow-up of patients, there is still concern for the potential long-term risks of PBMT in cancer cell mutation and amplification,” Dr. Anders said. “They advised that PBMT should be used carefully when the irradiation beam is in the direction of the tumor zone.”

Using PBMT for modulation of pain is another area of active research. Based on work from the laboratory of Dr. Anders and others, there are two methods to modulate pain. The first is to target tissue at irradiances below 100 mW/cm².

“In my laboratory, based on in vivo preclinical animal models of neuropathic pain, we used a 980-nm wavelength laser at 43.25 mW/cm² transcutaneously delivered to the level of the nerve for 20 seconds,” said Dr. Anders, who is a past president of the ASLMS. “Essentially, we found that the pain was modulated by reducing sensitivity to mechanical stimulation and also by causing an anti-inflammatory shift in microglial and macrophage phenotype in the dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord of affected segments.”

The second way to modulate pain, she continued, is to target tissue at irradiances above 250 mW/cm². She and her colleagues have conducted in vitro and in vivo studies, which indicate that treatment with an irradiance/fluence rate at 270 mW/cm² or higher at the nerve can rapidly block pain transmission.

“In vitro, we found that if we used an 810-nm wavelength light at 300 mW/cm², we got a disruption of microtubules in the DRG neurons in culture, specifically the small neurons, the nociceptive fibers, but we did not affect the proprioceptive fibers unless we increased the length of the treatment,” she said. “We essentially found the same thing in vivo in a rodent model of neuropathic pain.”

In a pilot study, Dr. Anders and coauthors examined the efficacy of laser irradiation of the dorsal root ganglion of the second lumbar spinal nerve for patients with chronic back pain.

They found that PBMT effectively reduced back pain equal to the effects of lidocaine.

Based on these two irradiation approaches of targeting tissue, Dr. Anders recommends that a combination therapy be used to modulate neuropathic pain going forward. “This approach would involve the initial use of a high-irradiance treatment [at least 250 mW/cm²] at the nerve to block the pain transmission,” she said. “That treatment would be followed by a series of low-irradiance treatments [10-100 mW/cm²] along the course of the involved nerve to alter chronic pathology and inflammation.”
 

Potential applications in neurology

Dr. Anders also discussed research efforts under way involving transcranial PBMT: the delivery of near-infrared light through the tissues of the scalp and skull to targeted brain regions to treat neurologic injuries and disorders. “There have been some exciting results in preclinical animal work and in small clinical pilot work that show that there could be possible beneficial effects in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and improvement in cognition and memory after a brain injury, such as a TBI,” she said.

“Initially, though, there were a lot of questions about whether you could really deliver light to the brain through the scalp. In my laboratory, we used slices of nonfixed brain and found that the sulci within the human brain act as light-wave guides. We used an 808-nm near-infrared wavelength of light, so that the light could penetrate more deeply.” Using nonfixed cadaver heads, where the light was applied at the scalp surface, Dr. Anders and colleagues were able to measure photons down to the depth of 4 cm. “It’s generally agreed now, though, that it’s to a maximum depth of 2.5-3 cm that enough photons are delivered that would cause a beneficial therapeutic effect,” she said.

Dr. Anders disclosed that she has received equipment from LiteCure, grant funding from the Department of Defense, and that she holds advisory board roles with LiteCure and Neurothera. She has also served in leadership roles for the Optical Society and holds intellectual property rights for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Advances in photobiomodulation have propelled the use of therapeutic applications in a variety of medical specialties, according to Juanita J. Anders, PhD.

During the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Anders, professor of anatomy, physiology, and genetics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., defined photobiomodulation (PBM) as the mechanism by which nonionizing optical radiation in the visible and near-infrared spectral range is absorbed by endogenous chromophores to elicit photophysical and photochemical events at various biological scales. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) involves the use of light sources including lasers, LEDs, and broadband light, that emit visible and/or near-infrared light to cause physiological changes in cells and tissues and result in therapeutic benefits.

In dermatology, LED light therapy devices are commonly used for PBMT in wavelengths that range from blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) to near infrared (830 nm). “Often, when PBMT is referred to by dermatologists it’s called LED therapy or LED light therapy,” Dr. Anders noted. “Some people are under the impression that this is different from PBMT. But remember: It’s not the device that’s producing the photons that is clinically relevant, but it’s the photons themselves. In both cases, the same radiances and fluence ranges are being used and the mechanisms are the same, so it’s all PBMT.”

The therapy is used to treat a wide variety of medical and aesthetic disorders including acne vulgaris, psoriasis, burns, and wound healing. It has also been used in conjunction with surgical aesthetic and resurfacing procedures and has been reported to reduce erythema, edema, bruising, and days to healing. It’s been shown that PBMT stimulates fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and extracellular matrix resulting in lifting and tightening lax skin.

According to Dr. Anders, French dermatologists Linda Fouque, MD, and Michele Pelletier, MD, performed a series of in vivo and in vitro studies in which they tested the effects of yellow and red light for skin rejuvenation when used individually or in combination. “They found that fibroblasts and keratinocytes in vitro had great improvement in their morphology both with the yellow and red light, but the best improvement was seen with combination therapy,” Dr. Anders said. “This held true in their work looking at epidermal and dermal markers in the skin, where they found the best up-regulation in protein synthesis of such markers as collagens and fibronectin were produced when a combination wavelength light was used.”

Oral mucositis and pain

PBMT is also being used to treat oral mucositis (OM), a common adverse response to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, which causes pain, difficulty in swallowing and eating, and oral ulceration, and often interrupts the course of treatments. Authors of a recently published review on the risks and benefits of PBMT concluded that there is consistent evidence from a small number of high-quality studies that PBMT can help prevent the development of cancer therapy–induced OM, reduce pain intensity, as well as promote healing, and enhance patient quality of life.

“They also cautioned that, due to the limited long-term follow-up of patients, there is still concern for the potential long-term risks of PBMT in cancer cell mutation and amplification,” Dr. Anders said. “They advised that PBMT should be used carefully when the irradiation beam is in the direction of the tumor zone.”

Using PBMT for modulation of pain is another area of active research. Based on work from the laboratory of Dr. Anders and others, there are two methods to modulate pain. The first is to target tissue at irradiances below 100 mW/cm².

“In my laboratory, based on in vivo preclinical animal models of neuropathic pain, we used a 980-nm wavelength laser at 43.25 mW/cm² transcutaneously delivered to the level of the nerve for 20 seconds,” said Dr. Anders, who is a past president of the ASLMS. “Essentially, we found that the pain was modulated by reducing sensitivity to mechanical stimulation and also by causing an anti-inflammatory shift in microglial and macrophage phenotype in the dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord of affected segments.”

The second way to modulate pain, she continued, is to target tissue at irradiances above 250 mW/cm². She and her colleagues have conducted in vitro and in vivo studies, which indicate that treatment with an irradiance/fluence rate at 270 mW/cm² or higher at the nerve can rapidly block pain transmission.

“In vitro, we found that if we used an 810-nm wavelength light at 300 mW/cm², we got a disruption of microtubules in the DRG neurons in culture, specifically the small neurons, the nociceptive fibers, but we did not affect the proprioceptive fibers unless we increased the length of the treatment,” she said. “We essentially found the same thing in vivo in a rodent model of neuropathic pain.”

In a pilot study, Dr. Anders and coauthors examined the efficacy of laser irradiation of the dorsal root ganglion of the second lumbar spinal nerve for patients with chronic back pain.

They found that PBMT effectively reduced back pain equal to the effects of lidocaine.

Based on these two irradiation approaches of targeting tissue, Dr. Anders recommends that a combination therapy be used to modulate neuropathic pain going forward. “This approach would involve the initial use of a high-irradiance treatment [at least 250 mW/cm²] at the nerve to block the pain transmission,” she said. “That treatment would be followed by a series of low-irradiance treatments [10-100 mW/cm²] along the course of the involved nerve to alter chronic pathology and inflammation.”
 

Potential applications in neurology

Dr. Anders also discussed research efforts under way involving transcranial PBMT: the delivery of near-infrared light through the tissues of the scalp and skull to targeted brain regions to treat neurologic injuries and disorders. “There have been some exciting results in preclinical animal work and in small clinical pilot work that show that there could be possible beneficial effects in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and improvement in cognition and memory after a brain injury, such as a TBI,” she said.

“Initially, though, there were a lot of questions about whether you could really deliver light to the brain through the scalp. In my laboratory, we used slices of nonfixed brain and found that the sulci within the human brain act as light-wave guides. We used an 808-nm near-infrared wavelength of light, so that the light could penetrate more deeply.” Using nonfixed cadaver heads, where the light was applied at the scalp surface, Dr. Anders and colleagues were able to measure photons down to the depth of 4 cm. “It’s generally agreed now, though, that it’s to a maximum depth of 2.5-3 cm that enough photons are delivered that would cause a beneficial therapeutic effect,” she said.

Dr. Anders disclosed that she has received equipment from LiteCure, grant funding from the Department of Defense, and that she holds advisory board roles with LiteCure and Neurothera. She has also served in leadership roles for the Optical Society and holds intellectual property rights for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.

Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
 

A promising start

Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.

Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.

The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.

The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.

“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.

The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.

Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.

ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
 

A ‘strong’ recommendation

The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.

But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.

Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.

Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.

The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.

The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.

aotto@mdedge.com

The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.

Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
 

A promising start

Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.

Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.

The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.

The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.

“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.

The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.

Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.

ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
 

A ‘strong’ recommendation

The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.

But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.

Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.

Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.

The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.

The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.

aotto@mdedge.com

The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.

Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
 

A promising start

Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.

Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.

The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.

The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.

“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.

The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.

Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.

ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
 

A ‘strong’ recommendation

The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.

But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.

Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.

Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.

The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.

The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.

aotto@mdedge.com

Patients with a disorder of consciousness (DoC) following a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) often regain consciousness and even functional independence during rehabilitation, according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.

“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).

Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).

Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
 

When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope

The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.

“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.

That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?

“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
 

Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists

“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”

“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”

She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.

“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with a disorder of consciousness (DoC) following a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) often regain consciousness and even functional independence during rehabilitation, according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.

“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).

Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).

Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
 

When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope

The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.

“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.

That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?

“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
 

Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists

“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”

“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”

She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.

“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with a disorder of consciousness (DoC) following a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) often regain consciousness and even functional independence during rehabilitation, according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.

“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).

Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).

Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
 

When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope

The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.

“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.

That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?

“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
 

Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists

“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”

“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”

She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.

“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.

I’m not an academic. Never will be.

I’m also a crappy statistician. Neither my university nor medical school required statistics classes, so I never really learned them. In medicine you pick up an idea of how to interpret them as part of the job, but I’m certainly not a pro with numbers.

Which brings me to the word of the day, Aduhelm, AKA aducanumab.

A lot of drugs have come and gone in the 30 years since my medical school pharmacology class, but very few with this one’s degree of uncertainty.

Clearly its mechanism works: It removes amyloid from the brain. I don’t think anyone will argue that. But the real question is whether this translates into actual clinical benefit.

The water is murky here, and even its most ardent supporters admit the evidence isn’t exactly overwhelming. To some extent the approval basically puts it in a huge open-label clinical trial, with the Food and Drug Administration saying that it will be withdrawn if success isn’t seen in follow-up studies.

I’m not a statistics person, but I understand that, when numbers are marginal, they can be spun to mean whatever someone wants them to mean. And the stakes here, both medically and financially, are pretty high.

Alzheimer’s disease, unquestionably, is a devastating illness. The best treatments we have for it are modest at best. The demand for new treatments is huge.

But “new” doesn’t mean the same as “effective.” This is where the statistics, and their supporters and detractors, come in.

Patients and their families aren’t (usually) doctors. They want a treatment that’s both effective and reasonably safe, especially for a disease where a tragic prognosis is well established. With this drug (and similar ones in development) we face a balance between uncertain benefits and a clear risk of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. The best we can do is explain these vagaries to people so they understand the uncertainties involved.

Perhaps more troubling is the possibility lurking in the background: The amyloid comes out, but the prognosis doesn’t improve. This brings us to the possibility (already voiced in journals) that the whole amyloid theory is wrong, and we’ve spent all this time and money chasing the wrong villain. As Morpheus, in The Matrix, implies, our whole reality on this may not be real.

Regrettably, in science (and medicine is a science) the only way to find out what works and what doesn’t is through trial and error. Computer modeling can take us only so far. Whether Aduhelm succeeds or fails will all be in the numbers.

But if it (and similar agents) fail in the general population, then it may be time to accept that we’re chasing the wrong bad guy.

That’s what data and statistics do.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m not an academic. Never will be.

I’m also a crappy statistician. Neither my university nor medical school required statistics classes, so I never really learned them. In medicine you pick up an idea of how to interpret them as part of the job, but I’m certainly not a pro with numbers.

Which brings me to the word of the day, Aduhelm, AKA aducanumab.

A lot of drugs have come and gone in the 30 years since my medical school pharmacology class, but very few with this one’s degree of uncertainty.

Clearly its mechanism works: It removes amyloid from the brain. I don’t think anyone will argue that. But the real question is whether this translates into actual clinical benefit.

The water is murky here, and even its most ardent supporters admit the evidence isn’t exactly overwhelming. To some extent the approval basically puts it in a huge open-label clinical trial, with the Food and Drug Administration saying that it will be withdrawn if success isn’t seen in follow-up studies.

I’m not a statistics person, but I understand that, when numbers are marginal, they can be spun to mean whatever someone wants them to mean. And the stakes here, both medically and financially, are pretty high.

Alzheimer’s disease, unquestionably, is a devastating illness. The best treatments we have for it are modest at best. The demand for new treatments is huge.

But “new” doesn’t mean the same as “effective.” This is where the statistics, and their supporters and detractors, come in.

Patients and their families aren’t (usually) doctors. They want a treatment that’s both effective and reasonably safe, especially for a disease where a tragic prognosis is well established. With this drug (and similar ones in development) we face a balance between uncertain benefits and a clear risk of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. The best we can do is explain these vagaries to people so they understand the uncertainties involved.

Perhaps more troubling is the possibility lurking in the background: The amyloid comes out, but the prognosis doesn’t improve. This brings us to the possibility (already voiced in journals) that the whole amyloid theory is wrong, and we’ve spent all this time and money chasing the wrong villain. As Morpheus, in The Matrix, implies, our whole reality on this may not be real.

Regrettably, in science (and medicine is a science) the only way to find out what works and what doesn’t is through trial and error. Computer modeling can take us only so far. Whether Aduhelm succeeds or fails will all be in the numbers.

But if it (and similar agents) fail in the general population, then it may be time to accept that we’re chasing the wrong bad guy.

That’s what data and statistics do.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m not an academic. Never will be.

I’m also a crappy statistician. Neither my university nor medical school required statistics classes, so I never really learned them. In medicine you pick up an idea of how to interpret them as part of the job, but I’m certainly not a pro with numbers.

Which brings me to the word of the day, Aduhelm, AKA aducanumab.

A lot of drugs have come and gone in the 30 years since my medical school pharmacology class, but very few with this one’s degree of uncertainty.

Clearly its mechanism works: It removes amyloid from the brain. I don’t think anyone will argue that. But the real question is whether this translates into actual clinical benefit.

The water is murky here, and even its most ardent supporters admit the evidence isn’t exactly overwhelming. To some extent the approval basically puts it in a huge open-label clinical trial, with the Food and Drug Administration saying that it will be withdrawn if success isn’t seen in follow-up studies.

I’m not a statistics person, but I understand that, when numbers are marginal, they can be spun to mean whatever someone wants them to mean. And the stakes here, both medically and financially, are pretty high.

Alzheimer’s disease, unquestionably, is a devastating illness. The best treatments we have for it are modest at best. The demand for new treatments is huge.

But “new” doesn’t mean the same as “effective.” This is where the statistics, and their supporters and detractors, come in.

Patients and their families aren’t (usually) doctors. They want a treatment that’s both effective and reasonably safe, especially for a disease where a tragic prognosis is well established. With this drug (and similar ones in development) we face a balance between uncertain benefits and a clear risk of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. The best we can do is explain these vagaries to people so they understand the uncertainties involved.

Perhaps more troubling is the possibility lurking in the background: The amyloid comes out, but the prognosis doesn’t improve. This brings us to the possibility (already voiced in journals) that the whole amyloid theory is wrong, and we’ve spent all this time and money chasing the wrong villain. As Morpheus, in The Matrix, implies, our whole reality on this may not be real.

Regrettably, in science (and medicine is a science) the only way to find out what works and what doesn’t is through trial and error. Computer modeling can take us only so far. Whether Aduhelm succeeds or fails will all be in the numbers.

But if it (and similar agents) fail in the general population, then it may be time to accept that we’re chasing the wrong bad guy.

That’s what data and statistics do.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

People with migraine tend to have lower levels of physical activity than those without migraine despite the beneficial effects of physical activity on reducing frequency of migraine, according to a presentation at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

Though reliable research is sparse overall on how much physical activity people with migraine get, enough exists to reveal the need for clinicians to help patients identify ways to increase their levels of physical activity and make it a habit, said Dale S. Bond, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Miriam Hospital and Brown University, both in Providence, R.I.

He emphasized the need not only to replace sedentary time with physical activity but also to reduce sedentary time overall.

“It’s important to note that because active and sedentary represent different behavioral domains, people can still be active – that is, achieving recommended levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity [MVPA] – but still be highly sedentary because they sit for long hours throughout the day,” Dr. Bond said. “This is important because MVPA will not necessarily eliminate the health risks of long hours of sitting.”

Dr. Bond reviewed the existing literature on physical activity and sedentary behavior among patients with migraine. His presentation, “Move More, Sit Less,” aimed at finding ways to incorporate more physical activity into the daily lives of those with migraine. Dr. Bond began by briefly reviewing the well-established benefits of physical activity, including healthy sleep; cardiovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal, mental, and cognitive health; and metabolic functioning.

“Physical activity and exercise in particular enhances the functioning of bodily systems, including those that have direct relevance to migraine in its comorbidities,” Dr. Bond said. “The positive systemic effects of exercise on bodily systems carries potential to reduce migraine severity and related disability and morbidity.”

He also explained the ways in which excessive sedentary time can exacerbate migraine triggers. “Long periods of interrupted sitting elevated levels of glucose and fat in the bloodstream, which in turn triggers the immune system to attack the body via inflammation,” Dr. Bond said. “Low grade chronic inflammation has long been hypothesized to play a role in migraine pathogenesis.”
 

Recommended levels of exercise

The World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services recommends at least 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week. An additional recommendation is at least 2 days per week of muscle strengthening activities that involve all major muscle groups.

While neither of those organizations has specific guidelines on how much reduction of sedentary time is recommended, the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology recommends limiting sedentary time to 8 or fewer hours per day.
 

Exercise and migraine

“Unfortunately, at present, we have very few studies from which to draw conclusions about the extent to which individuals with migraine adhere to physical activity and sedentary guidelines,” Dr. Bond said. Existing studies vary widely in sample types, study design, physical activity measure and MVPA outcome, including the type or definition of MVPA. “This wide variability in measures and outcomes makes it challenging to draw any conclusions about adherence to guidelines among individuals with migraine,” he said.

Existing evidence suggests anywhere from 32% to 66% of migraine patients are at least moderately active, though it’s not clear what constitutes “moderately active” behavior. It appears that activity levels of patients with migraine are low overall, but it’s less clear the extent to which these levels are lower than in controls given the paucity of evidence.

In one of the few studies using objective measures to assess physical activity in migraine patients, the daily level of MVPA was significantly lower in 25 women with migraine than in 25 age- and body mass index–matched women without migraine (P <. 003). Both groups had obesity. The same study found that virtually no women with migraine adhered to the guidelines recommending less than 8 hours a day of sedentary time, compared with 30% of women without migraine.

“Also, low physical activity and high sedentary levels appear to be consistent across headache and nonheadache days,” Dr. Bond said. “This finding in particular raises an interesting question: If migraine severity is not related to physical activity and sedentary time, what is it about migraine that contributes to an inactive and sedentary lifestyle?”

Dr. Bond noted that future research needs to include reports of frequency, duration, and intensity of activities performed as well as the percentage of participants who meet guidelines for physical activity and sedentary time. Ideally, these studies should include not only self-report but also objective measures of activity as well as assess sleep and identify barriers and facilitators to physical activity in patients.
 

Exercise avoidance

Dr. Bond described findings from survey of 100 women he conducted to better understand potential barriers and reported that 78% of patients report intentionally avoiding physical activity. These patients typically avoided it an average of 4 days per week, regardless of intensity, and additional survey findings found “that participants who reported any avoidance had stronger beliefs that physical activity would both trigger and worsen a migraine attack, compared with participants who reported no avoidance,” he said.

That finding matches the clinical experience of Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, who viewed the presentation but was not involved with it.

“They often feel that it is a trigger for worsening an attack or, for some people, can actually trigger an attack, and that they feel worse in the midst of an attack when they’re exercising,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview regarding her patients who exercise less frequently. “Since so many of the patients I see have a daily and constant headache, it’s about how they can get themselves to start to exercise when something makes them feel worse, even if it makes them feel better in the long run.”

Yet, experimental research suggests that physical activity is not necessarily a reliable trigger of migraine attacks and only worsens migraine in a minority of attacks, Dr. Bond said, revealing an interesting paradox: “While engaging in regular physical activity is an important migraine management strategy, most individuals in the study reported doing the exact opposite – that is, avoiding physical activity as a management strategy – and this strategy was associated with higher frequency and duration of attacks. Research from our group and others also suggested individuals with migraine could be overestimating the role that physical activity hasn’t triggering or worsening of attacks.”
 

Encouraging patients to exercise

Since the benefits of physical activity and limiting sedentary time outweigh the potential harms, “some physical activity is better than none,” Dr. Bond said. To help patients begin increasing their physical activity, he recommended advising them to start with small amounts and then gradually increase frequency, intensity, and duration over time.

Dr. Robblee follows a similar approach, taking into account each patient’s particular circumstances and any medications they’re taking, including the side effects of those medications.

“It’s about starting where they are,” Dr. Robblee said. “Some patients, despite having severe migraine, have built themselves up so they’re doing exercise three or four times per week, or every day, and I have other people who never exercise,” she said. “For those patients who are very sedentary, if I can get them to start with 5 minutes per week so they have that sense of accomplishment, then that’s where I start. Then slowly build it up over time. Like most things in the migraine world, I individualize it for the person.”

Dr. Bond offered the following specific tips to clinicians in educating and encouraging patients to increase physical activity:

• Educate patients regarding the short-and long-term benefits of moving more and sitting less, both for their migraines and for overall health.
• Correct misconceptions about the negative effects of physical activity as it relates to migraines.
• Personalize the rationale for physical activity to that patient’s specific values and personal goals.
• Encourage patients to use an activity tracker, both for tracking physical activity and sedentary time, and to monitor migraine attacks, stress, energy levels, and fatigue on days they do and do not exercise.
• Help patients set goals for eventually meeting MVPA recommendations and interrupting prolonged periods of sitting with brief movement breaks.
• Help patients identify rewards for meeting goals that are tied to the activity, such as new exercise clothing.
• Encourage patients to identify a consistent time for physical activity each day to establish a habit, “ideally in the morning before barriers and life get in the way,” he said.

Eventually, physical activity itself should become intrinsically rewarding, Dr. Bond said.

“To limit sitting and encourage more movement throughout the day, we want to make the choice to engage in physical activity easier by adding environmental cues that encourage physical activity,” he said. “Conversely, we want to make the choice to engage in sedentary behavior more difficult by increasing the amount of effort that is required to engage in these behaviors.”

Dr. Robblee found Dr. Bond’s emphasis on sitting less – distinct from moving more – a helpful frame to consider with her patients. “I really like the approach of looking at it from that approach: in addition to how do we get you up and moving, how much time are you sitting, and how often can you break that up into smaller increments so that you’re up more often?” Dr. Robblee said. “That sometimes sounds less scary than ‘let’s get you exercising.’ So ‘let’s get you sitting a little bit less.’ I think that is something I might start to adopt.”

No external funding was noted. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.
 

People with migraine tend to have lower levels of physical activity than those without migraine despite the beneficial effects of physical activity on reducing frequency of migraine, according to a presentation at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

Though reliable research is sparse overall on how much physical activity people with migraine get, enough exists to reveal the need for clinicians to help patients identify ways to increase their levels of physical activity and make it a habit, said Dale S. Bond, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Miriam Hospital and Brown University, both in Providence, R.I.

He emphasized the need not only to replace sedentary time with physical activity but also to reduce sedentary time overall.

“It’s important to note that because active and sedentary represent different behavioral domains, people can still be active – that is, achieving recommended levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity [MVPA] – but still be highly sedentary because they sit for long hours throughout the day,” Dr. Bond said. “This is important because MVPA will not necessarily eliminate the health risks of long hours of sitting.”

Dr. Bond reviewed the existing literature on physical activity and sedentary behavior among patients with migraine. His presentation, “Move More, Sit Less,” aimed at finding ways to incorporate more physical activity into the daily lives of those with migraine. Dr. Bond began by briefly reviewing the well-established benefits of physical activity, including healthy sleep; cardiovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal, mental, and cognitive health; and metabolic functioning.

“Physical activity and exercise in particular enhances the functioning of bodily systems, including those that have direct relevance to migraine in its comorbidities,” Dr. Bond said. “The positive systemic effects of exercise on bodily systems carries potential to reduce migraine severity and related disability and morbidity.”

He also explained the ways in which excessive sedentary time can exacerbate migraine triggers. “Long periods of interrupted sitting elevated levels of glucose and fat in the bloodstream, which in turn triggers the immune system to attack the body via inflammation,” Dr. Bond said. “Low grade chronic inflammation has long been hypothesized to play a role in migraine pathogenesis.”
 

Recommended levels of exercise

The World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services recommends at least 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week. An additional recommendation is at least 2 days per week of muscle strengthening activities that involve all major muscle groups.

While neither of those organizations has specific guidelines on how much reduction of sedentary time is recommended, the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology recommends limiting sedentary time to 8 or fewer hours per day.
 

Exercise and migraine

“Unfortunately, at present, we have very few studies from which to draw conclusions about the extent to which individuals with migraine adhere to physical activity and sedentary guidelines,” Dr. Bond said. Existing studies vary widely in sample types, study design, physical activity measure and MVPA outcome, including the type or definition of MVPA. “This wide variability in measures and outcomes makes it challenging to draw any conclusions about adherence to guidelines among individuals with migraine,” he said.

Existing evidence suggests anywhere from 32% to 66% of migraine patients are at least moderately active, though it’s not clear what constitutes “moderately active” behavior. It appears that activity levels of patients with migraine are low overall, but it’s less clear the extent to which these levels are lower than in controls given the paucity of evidence.

In one of the few studies using objective measures to assess physical activity in migraine patients, the daily level of MVPA was significantly lower in 25 women with migraine than in 25 age- and body mass index–matched women without migraine (P <. 003). Both groups had obesity. The same study found that virtually no women with migraine adhered to the guidelines recommending less than 8 hours a day of sedentary time, compared with 30% of women without migraine.

“Also, low physical activity and high sedentary levels appear to be consistent across headache and nonheadache days,” Dr. Bond said. “This finding in particular raises an interesting question: If migraine severity is not related to physical activity and sedentary time, what is it about migraine that contributes to an inactive and sedentary lifestyle?”

Dr. Bond noted that future research needs to include reports of frequency, duration, and intensity of activities performed as well as the percentage of participants who meet guidelines for physical activity and sedentary time. Ideally, these studies should include not only self-report but also objective measures of activity as well as assess sleep and identify barriers and facilitators to physical activity in patients.
 

Exercise avoidance

Dr. Bond described findings from survey of 100 women he conducted to better understand potential barriers and reported that 78% of patients report intentionally avoiding physical activity. These patients typically avoided it an average of 4 days per week, regardless of intensity, and additional survey findings found “that participants who reported any avoidance had stronger beliefs that physical activity would both trigger and worsen a migraine attack, compared with participants who reported no avoidance,” he said.

That finding matches the clinical experience of Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, who viewed the presentation but was not involved with it.

“They often feel that it is a trigger for worsening an attack or, for some people, can actually trigger an attack, and that they feel worse in the midst of an attack when they’re exercising,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview regarding her patients who exercise less frequently. “Since so many of the patients I see have a daily and constant headache, it’s about how they can get themselves to start to exercise when something makes them feel worse, even if it makes them feel better in the long run.”

Yet, experimental research suggests that physical activity is not necessarily a reliable trigger of migraine attacks and only worsens migraine in a minority of attacks, Dr. Bond said, revealing an interesting paradox: “While engaging in regular physical activity is an important migraine management strategy, most individuals in the study reported doing the exact opposite – that is, avoiding physical activity as a management strategy – and this strategy was associated with higher frequency and duration of attacks. Research from our group and others also suggested individuals with migraine could be overestimating the role that physical activity hasn’t triggering or worsening of attacks.”
 

Encouraging patients to exercise

Since the benefits of physical activity and limiting sedentary time outweigh the potential harms, “some physical activity is better than none,” Dr. Bond said. To help patients begin increasing their physical activity, he recommended advising them to start with small amounts and then gradually increase frequency, intensity, and duration over time.

Dr. Robblee follows a similar approach, taking into account each patient’s particular circumstances and any medications they’re taking, including the side effects of those medications.

“It’s about starting where they are,” Dr. Robblee said. “Some patients, despite having severe migraine, have built themselves up so they’re doing exercise three or four times per week, or every day, and I have other people who never exercise,” she said. “For those patients who are very sedentary, if I can get them to start with 5 minutes per week so they have that sense of accomplishment, then that’s where I start. Then slowly build it up over time. Like most things in the migraine world, I individualize it for the person.”

Dr. Bond offered the following specific tips to clinicians in educating and encouraging patients to increase physical activity:

• Educate patients regarding the short-and long-term benefits of moving more and sitting less, both for their migraines and for overall health.
• Correct misconceptions about the negative effects of physical activity as it relates to migraines.
• Personalize the rationale for physical activity to that patient’s specific values and personal goals.
• Encourage patients to use an activity tracker, both for tracking physical activity and sedentary time, and to monitor migraine attacks, stress, energy levels, and fatigue on days they do and do not exercise.
• Help patients set goals for eventually meeting MVPA recommendations and interrupting prolonged periods of sitting with brief movement breaks.
• Help patients identify rewards for meeting goals that are tied to the activity, such as new exercise clothing.
• Encourage patients to identify a consistent time for physical activity each day to establish a habit, “ideally in the morning before barriers and life get in the way,” he said.

Eventually, physical activity itself should become intrinsically rewarding, Dr. Bond said.

“To limit sitting and encourage more movement throughout the day, we want to make the choice to engage in physical activity easier by adding environmental cues that encourage physical activity,” he said. “Conversely, we want to make the choice to engage in sedentary behavior more difficult by increasing the amount of effort that is required to engage in these behaviors.”

Dr. Robblee found Dr. Bond’s emphasis on sitting less – distinct from moving more – a helpful frame to consider with her patients. “I really like the approach of looking at it from that approach: in addition to how do we get you up and moving, how much time are you sitting, and how often can you break that up into smaller increments so that you’re up more often?” Dr. Robblee said. “That sometimes sounds less scary than ‘let’s get you exercising.’ So ‘let’s get you sitting a little bit less.’ I think that is something I might start to adopt.”

No external funding was noted. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.
 

People with migraine tend to have lower levels of physical activity than those without migraine despite the beneficial effects of physical activity on reducing frequency of migraine, according to a presentation at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

Though reliable research is sparse overall on how much physical activity people with migraine get, enough exists to reveal the need for clinicians to help patients identify ways to increase their levels of physical activity and make it a habit, said Dale S. Bond, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the Miriam Hospital and Brown University, both in Providence, R.I.

He emphasized the need not only to replace sedentary time with physical activity but also to reduce sedentary time overall.

“It’s important to note that because active and sedentary represent different behavioral domains, people can still be active – that is, achieving recommended levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity [MVPA] – but still be highly sedentary because they sit for long hours throughout the day,” Dr. Bond said. “This is important because MVPA will not necessarily eliminate the health risks of long hours of sitting.”

Dr. Bond reviewed the existing literature on physical activity and sedentary behavior among patients with migraine. His presentation, “Move More, Sit Less,” aimed at finding ways to incorporate more physical activity into the daily lives of those with migraine. Dr. Bond began by briefly reviewing the well-established benefits of physical activity, including healthy sleep; cardiovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal, mental, and cognitive health; and metabolic functioning.

“Physical activity and exercise in particular enhances the functioning of bodily systems, including those that have direct relevance to migraine in its comorbidities,” Dr. Bond said. “The positive systemic effects of exercise on bodily systems carries potential to reduce migraine severity and related disability and morbidity.”

He also explained the ways in which excessive sedentary time can exacerbate migraine triggers. “Long periods of interrupted sitting elevated levels of glucose and fat in the bloodstream, which in turn triggers the immune system to attack the body via inflammation,” Dr. Bond said. “Low grade chronic inflammation has long been hypothesized to play a role in migraine pathogenesis.”
 

Recommended levels of exercise

The World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services recommends at least 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week. An additional recommendation is at least 2 days per week of muscle strengthening activities that involve all major muscle groups.

While neither of those organizations has specific guidelines on how much reduction of sedentary time is recommended, the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology recommends limiting sedentary time to 8 or fewer hours per day.
 

Exercise and migraine

“Unfortunately, at present, we have very few studies from which to draw conclusions about the extent to which individuals with migraine adhere to physical activity and sedentary guidelines,” Dr. Bond said. Existing studies vary widely in sample types, study design, physical activity measure and MVPA outcome, including the type or definition of MVPA. “This wide variability in measures and outcomes makes it challenging to draw any conclusions about adherence to guidelines among individuals with migraine,” he said.

Existing evidence suggests anywhere from 32% to 66% of migraine patients are at least moderately active, though it’s not clear what constitutes “moderately active” behavior. It appears that activity levels of patients with migraine are low overall, but it’s less clear the extent to which these levels are lower than in controls given the paucity of evidence.

In one of the few studies using objective measures to assess physical activity in migraine patients, the daily level of MVPA was significantly lower in 25 women with migraine than in 25 age- and body mass index–matched women without migraine (P <. 003). Both groups had obesity. The same study found that virtually no women with migraine adhered to the guidelines recommending less than 8 hours a day of sedentary time, compared with 30% of women without migraine.

“Also, low physical activity and high sedentary levels appear to be consistent across headache and nonheadache days,” Dr. Bond said. “This finding in particular raises an interesting question: If migraine severity is not related to physical activity and sedentary time, what is it about migraine that contributes to an inactive and sedentary lifestyle?”

Dr. Bond noted that future research needs to include reports of frequency, duration, and intensity of activities performed as well as the percentage of participants who meet guidelines for physical activity and sedentary time. Ideally, these studies should include not only self-report but also objective measures of activity as well as assess sleep and identify barriers and facilitators to physical activity in patients.
 

Exercise avoidance

Dr. Bond described findings from survey of 100 women he conducted to better understand potential barriers and reported that 78% of patients report intentionally avoiding physical activity. These patients typically avoided it an average of 4 days per week, regardless of intensity, and additional survey findings found “that participants who reported any avoidance had stronger beliefs that physical activity would both trigger and worsen a migraine attack, compared with participants who reported no avoidance,” he said.

That finding matches the clinical experience of Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, who viewed the presentation but was not involved with it.

“They often feel that it is a trigger for worsening an attack or, for some people, can actually trigger an attack, and that they feel worse in the midst of an attack when they’re exercising,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview regarding her patients who exercise less frequently. “Since so many of the patients I see have a daily and constant headache, it’s about how they can get themselves to start to exercise when something makes them feel worse, even if it makes them feel better in the long run.”

Yet, experimental research suggests that physical activity is not necessarily a reliable trigger of migraine attacks and only worsens migraine in a minority of attacks, Dr. Bond said, revealing an interesting paradox: “While engaging in regular physical activity is an important migraine management strategy, most individuals in the study reported doing the exact opposite – that is, avoiding physical activity as a management strategy – and this strategy was associated with higher frequency and duration of attacks. Research from our group and others also suggested individuals with migraine could be overestimating the role that physical activity hasn’t triggering or worsening of attacks.”
 

Encouraging patients to exercise

Since the benefits of physical activity and limiting sedentary time outweigh the potential harms, “some physical activity is better than none,” Dr. Bond said. To help patients begin increasing their physical activity, he recommended advising them to start with small amounts and then gradually increase frequency, intensity, and duration over time.

Dr. Robblee follows a similar approach, taking into account each patient’s particular circumstances and any medications they’re taking, including the side effects of those medications.

“It’s about starting where they are,” Dr. Robblee said. “Some patients, despite having severe migraine, have built themselves up so they’re doing exercise three or four times per week, or every day, and I have other people who never exercise,” she said. “For those patients who are very sedentary, if I can get them to start with 5 minutes per week so they have that sense of accomplishment, then that’s where I start. Then slowly build it up over time. Like most things in the migraine world, I individualize it for the person.”

Dr. Bond offered the following specific tips to clinicians in educating and encouraging patients to increase physical activity:

• Educate patients regarding the short-and long-term benefits of moving more and sitting less, both for their migraines and for overall health.
• Correct misconceptions about the negative effects of physical activity as it relates to migraines.
• Personalize the rationale for physical activity to that patient’s specific values and personal goals.
• Encourage patients to use an activity tracker, both for tracking physical activity and sedentary time, and to monitor migraine attacks, stress, energy levels, and fatigue on days they do and do not exercise.
• Help patients set goals for eventually meeting MVPA recommendations and interrupting prolonged periods of sitting with brief movement breaks.
• Help patients identify rewards for meeting goals that are tied to the activity, such as new exercise clothing.
• Encourage patients to identify a consistent time for physical activity each day to establish a habit, “ideally in the morning before barriers and life get in the way,” he said.

Eventually, physical activity itself should become intrinsically rewarding, Dr. Bond said.

“To limit sitting and encourage more movement throughout the day, we want to make the choice to engage in physical activity easier by adding environmental cues that encourage physical activity,” he said. “Conversely, we want to make the choice to engage in sedentary behavior more difficult by increasing the amount of effort that is required to engage in these behaviors.”

Dr. Robblee found Dr. Bond’s emphasis on sitting less – distinct from moving more – a helpful frame to consider with her patients. “I really like the approach of looking at it from that approach: in addition to how do we get you up and moving, how much time are you sitting, and how often can you break that up into smaller increments so that you’re up more often?” Dr. Robblee said. “That sometimes sounds less scary than ‘let’s get you exercising.’ So ‘let’s get you sitting a little bit less.’ I think that is something I might start to adopt.”

No external funding was noted. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem. Dr. Bond reported no disclosures.
 

Ubrogepant showed effectiveness for acute treatment of migraine when used with an anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) preventive or with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), or both, according to preliminary findings presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“Because prevention [with mAbs] is rarely 100% effective, virtually everyone on preventive treatment needs to also take acute treatment,” presenter Richard B. Lipton, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview after his presentation. He explained that ubrogepant, a small-molecule CGRP receptor blocker, is approved for acute treatment of migraine, while mAbs, which block the CGRP receptor or CGRP itself, are approved for prevention. “Many people predicted that gepants would not work in people on CGRP-targeted mAbs because of overlapping mechanisms.”

Dr. Lipton himself was not surprised by the findings, however. “For me, the surprise was that ubrogepant worked so well,” he said.  
 

Novel data collection

Uniquely, his study used an entirely remote design with mobile applications to safely evaluate the drug’s real-world effectiveness in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The prospective, observational study used the mobile app Migraine Buddy to collect data and assess outcomes from the use of 50 mg or 100 mg of ubrogepant along with a mAb, onabotA, or both.

In most migraine trials, researchers ask patients to track their symptoms in electronic diaries they learn how to use in the clinic.

“One disadvantage of this approach is that people usually need to carry two devices, the study device and their smartphone,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “In this study, people download an app at home to their smartphone and only need to carry one device. Though remote studies are particularly valuable in the time of pandemic, I believe that apps like Migraine Buddy are and will remain a valuable tool for addressing many research questions.”

Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, viewed the presentation and was also impressed with the novel use of a smartphone app to conduct the study. “I think that was a unique and cool demonstration of what can be done with the apps out there now,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “If you want to have really good tracking and more through tracking, apps like this are fabulous and are very patient forward and patient friendly.”
 

Combination therapy

The researchers invited 4,541 adults to participate in the study if they had previously reported at least three migraine attacks in the past 30 days and if they had treated at least three prior attacks with ubrogepant. The 483 participants who enrolled after consent and screening included 272 taking ubrogepant with mAb, 132 participants taking ubrogepant with onabotA, and 79 taking ubrogepant with both onabotA and mAb.

For 30 days, participants reported in the app’s diary their pain relief and the time elapsed since taking ubrogepant until they returned to normal functioning. Endpoints included meaningful pain relief – defined as “a level of pain relief that is meaningful to you” – and return to normal function at 2 and 4 hours.

During the study, 352 participants reported treating a migraine attack with a single dose of ubrogepant, and 78 participants treated migraine with two doses. The former group included 193 patients in the ubrogepant plus mAb group, 102 patients in the ubrogepant plus onabotA group, and 57 patients in the ubrogepant plus both group. Because of the limited enrollment in the second two arms, the data Dr. Lipton presented data only on the ubrogepant with mAb arm.

Most of this group (89.1%) was female, with an average age of 40 years and an average Migraine Disability Assessment score of 72.2. Most of the patients were taking erenumab (44.6%) or galcanezumab (34.2%) with the remaining patients taking fremanezumab (17.6%), eptinezumab (3.1%) or multiple mAbs (0.5%). Most participants (59.6%) were prescribed 100-mg ubrogepant dose while the remaining participants took 50 mg.

The analysis of the ubrogepant plus mAb group revealed that 64.2% of patients reported meaningful pain relief at 2 hours, and 84.5% had meaningful pain relief 4 hours after taking ubrogepant. The odds of achieving meaningful pain relief were statistically significant at both time points and remained significant after adjustment for participants’ age, Migraine Disability Assessment score and self-reported prescribed ubrogepant dose (P < .001).

“This study shows that in patients with migraine on CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies, ubrogepant is an acute treatment to consider for breakthrough headaches,” Dr. Lipton said. He added that they have now completed the study with more participants and begun analyzing all three groups.

“Full analyses will include data from multiple attacks, attacks treated with a second dose of ubrogepant, additional daily and 30-day effectiveness measures for use of ubrogepant with onabotA and use of ubrogepant with both onabotA and CGRP mAbs,” Dr. Lipton said.

While the findings did not surprise Dr. Robblee, she was happy to see a study that explicitly testing the combination of these treatments, especially given access challenges. “Right now, because treatments are new, we get a lot of insurance denials,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “It’s great to have a study out there that we can turn to and say, ‘hey, look, they had all these patients safely using these together.’ It’s going to help us improve access for patients.”

Though Dr. Robblee typically uses old-school pen-and-calendar diaries with her patients, she also sees potential for the use of apps going forward, just as she sees for virtual health care.

“I’ve found telemedicine in general to be a really great addition to the migraine world, and this plays into our ability to use telemedicine paired with tracking,” Dr. Robblee said. “In so many studies, we’re doing a diary anyway, so if there are standard diaries and programs we’re all using, that would be a nice way to do these.”

She notes that most symptom tracking for pain is subjective already, and these apps often include the options to print out the data or to export or transfer it electronically to physicians. “It’s giving us meaningful data,” she said.

The research was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Lipton has received honoraria or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Teva, Vector and Vedanta Research. He holds stock options in Biohaven and Ctrl M. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem.

Ubrogepant showed effectiveness for acute treatment of migraine when used with an anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) preventive or with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), or both, according to preliminary findings presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“Because prevention [with mAbs] is rarely 100% effective, virtually everyone on preventive treatment needs to also take acute treatment,” presenter Richard B. Lipton, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview after his presentation. He explained that ubrogepant, a small-molecule CGRP receptor blocker, is approved for acute treatment of migraine, while mAbs, which block the CGRP receptor or CGRP itself, are approved for prevention. “Many people predicted that gepants would not work in people on CGRP-targeted mAbs because of overlapping mechanisms.”

Dr. Lipton himself was not surprised by the findings, however. “For me, the surprise was that ubrogepant worked so well,” he said.  
 

Novel data collection

Uniquely, his study used an entirely remote design with mobile applications to safely evaluate the drug’s real-world effectiveness in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The prospective, observational study used the mobile app Migraine Buddy to collect data and assess outcomes from the use of 50 mg or 100 mg of ubrogepant along with a mAb, onabotA, or both.

In most migraine trials, researchers ask patients to track their symptoms in electronic diaries they learn how to use in the clinic.

“One disadvantage of this approach is that people usually need to carry two devices, the study device and their smartphone,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “In this study, people download an app at home to their smartphone and only need to carry one device. Though remote studies are particularly valuable in the time of pandemic, I believe that apps like Migraine Buddy are and will remain a valuable tool for addressing many research questions.”

Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, viewed the presentation and was also impressed with the novel use of a smartphone app to conduct the study. “I think that was a unique and cool demonstration of what can be done with the apps out there now,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “If you want to have really good tracking and more through tracking, apps like this are fabulous and are very patient forward and patient friendly.”
 

Combination therapy

The researchers invited 4,541 adults to participate in the study if they had previously reported at least three migraine attacks in the past 30 days and if they had treated at least three prior attacks with ubrogepant. The 483 participants who enrolled after consent and screening included 272 taking ubrogepant with mAb, 132 participants taking ubrogepant with onabotA, and 79 taking ubrogepant with both onabotA and mAb.

For 30 days, participants reported in the app’s diary their pain relief and the time elapsed since taking ubrogepant until they returned to normal functioning. Endpoints included meaningful pain relief – defined as “a level of pain relief that is meaningful to you” – and return to normal function at 2 and 4 hours.

During the study, 352 participants reported treating a migraine attack with a single dose of ubrogepant, and 78 participants treated migraine with two doses. The former group included 193 patients in the ubrogepant plus mAb group, 102 patients in the ubrogepant plus onabotA group, and 57 patients in the ubrogepant plus both group. Because of the limited enrollment in the second two arms, the data Dr. Lipton presented data only on the ubrogepant with mAb arm.

Most of this group (89.1%) was female, with an average age of 40 years and an average Migraine Disability Assessment score of 72.2. Most of the patients were taking erenumab (44.6%) or galcanezumab (34.2%) with the remaining patients taking fremanezumab (17.6%), eptinezumab (3.1%) or multiple mAbs (0.5%). Most participants (59.6%) were prescribed 100-mg ubrogepant dose while the remaining participants took 50 mg.

The analysis of the ubrogepant plus mAb group revealed that 64.2% of patients reported meaningful pain relief at 2 hours, and 84.5% had meaningful pain relief 4 hours after taking ubrogepant. The odds of achieving meaningful pain relief were statistically significant at both time points and remained significant after adjustment for participants’ age, Migraine Disability Assessment score and self-reported prescribed ubrogepant dose (P < .001).

“This study shows that in patients with migraine on CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies, ubrogepant is an acute treatment to consider for breakthrough headaches,” Dr. Lipton said. He added that they have now completed the study with more participants and begun analyzing all three groups.

“Full analyses will include data from multiple attacks, attacks treated with a second dose of ubrogepant, additional daily and 30-day effectiveness measures for use of ubrogepant with onabotA and use of ubrogepant with both onabotA and CGRP mAbs,” Dr. Lipton said.

While the findings did not surprise Dr. Robblee, she was happy to see a study that explicitly testing the combination of these treatments, especially given access challenges. “Right now, because treatments are new, we get a lot of insurance denials,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “It’s great to have a study out there that we can turn to and say, ‘hey, look, they had all these patients safely using these together.’ It’s going to help us improve access for patients.”

Though Dr. Robblee typically uses old-school pen-and-calendar diaries with her patients, she also sees potential for the use of apps going forward, just as she sees for virtual health care.

“I’ve found telemedicine in general to be a really great addition to the migraine world, and this plays into our ability to use telemedicine paired with tracking,” Dr. Robblee said. “In so many studies, we’re doing a diary anyway, so if there are standard diaries and programs we’re all using, that would be a nice way to do these.”

She notes that most symptom tracking for pain is subjective already, and these apps often include the options to print out the data or to export or transfer it electronically to physicians. “It’s giving us meaningful data,” she said.

The research was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Lipton has received honoraria or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Teva, Vector and Vedanta Research. He holds stock options in Biohaven and Ctrl M. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem.

Ubrogepant showed effectiveness for acute treatment of migraine when used with an anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) preventive or with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), or both, according to preliminary findings presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“Because prevention [with mAbs] is rarely 100% effective, virtually everyone on preventive treatment needs to also take acute treatment,” presenter Richard B. Lipton, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Montefiore Headache Center at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview after his presentation. He explained that ubrogepant, a small-molecule CGRP receptor blocker, is approved for acute treatment of migraine, while mAbs, which block the CGRP receptor or CGRP itself, are approved for prevention. “Many people predicted that gepants would not work in people on CGRP-targeted mAbs because of overlapping mechanisms.”

Dr. Lipton himself was not surprised by the findings, however. “For me, the surprise was that ubrogepant worked so well,” he said.  
 

Novel data collection

Uniquely, his study used an entirely remote design with mobile applications to safely evaluate the drug’s real-world effectiveness in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The prospective, observational study used the mobile app Migraine Buddy to collect data and assess outcomes from the use of 50 mg or 100 mg of ubrogepant along with a mAb, onabotA, or both.

In most migraine trials, researchers ask patients to track their symptoms in electronic diaries they learn how to use in the clinic.

“One disadvantage of this approach is that people usually need to carry two devices, the study device and their smartphone,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “In this study, people download an app at home to their smartphone and only need to carry one device. Though remote studies are particularly valuable in the time of pandemic, I believe that apps like Migraine Buddy are and will remain a valuable tool for addressing many research questions.”

Jennifer Robblee, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of neurology at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, viewed the presentation and was also impressed with the novel use of a smartphone app to conduct the study. “I think that was a unique and cool demonstration of what can be done with the apps out there now,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “If you want to have really good tracking and more through tracking, apps like this are fabulous and are very patient forward and patient friendly.”
 

Combination therapy

The researchers invited 4,541 adults to participate in the study if they had previously reported at least three migraine attacks in the past 30 days and if they had treated at least three prior attacks with ubrogepant. The 483 participants who enrolled after consent and screening included 272 taking ubrogepant with mAb, 132 participants taking ubrogepant with onabotA, and 79 taking ubrogepant with both onabotA and mAb.

For 30 days, participants reported in the app’s diary their pain relief and the time elapsed since taking ubrogepant until they returned to normal functioning. Endpoints included meaningful pain relief – defined as “a level of pain relief that is meaningful to you” – and return to normal function at 2 and 4 hours.

During the study, 352 participants reported treating a migraine attack with a single dose of ubrogepant, and 78 participants treated migraine with two doses. The former group included 193 patients in the ubrogepant plus mAb group, 102 patients in the ubrogepant plus onabotA group, and 57 patients in the ubrogepant plus both group. Because of the limited enrollment in the second two arms, the data Dr. Lipton presented data only on the ubrogepant with mAb arm.

Most of this group (89.1%) was female, with an average age of 40 years and an average Migraine Disability Assessment score of 72.2. Most of the patients were taking erenumab (44.6%) or galcanezumab (34.2%) with the remaining patients taking fremanezumab (17.6%), eptinezumab (3.1%) or multiple mAbs (0.5%). Most participants (59.6%) were prescribed 100-mg ubrogepant dose while the remaining participants took 50 mg.

The analysis of the ubrogepant plus mAb group revealed that 64.2% of patients reported meaningful pain relief at 2 hours, and 84.5% had meaningful pain relief 4 hours after taking ubrogepant. The odds of achieving meaningful pain relief were statistically significant at both time points and remained significant after adjustment for participants’ age, Migraine Disability Assessment score and self-reported prescribed ubrogepant dose (P < .001).

“This study shows that in patients with migraine on CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies, ubrogepant is an acute treatment to consider for breakthrough headaches,” Dr. Lipton said. He added that they have now completed the study with more participants and begun analyzing all three groups.

“Full analyses will include data from multiple attacks, attacks treated with a second dose of ubrogepant, additional daily and 30-day effectiveness measures for use of ubrogepant with onabotA and use of ubrogepant with both onabotA and CGRP mAbs,” Dr. Lipton said.

While the findings did not surprise Dr. Robblee, she was happy to see a study that explicitly testing the combination of these treatments, especially given access challenges. “Right now, because treatments are new, we get a lot of insurance denials,” Dr. Robblee said in an interview. “It’s great to have a study out there that we can turn to and say, ‘hey, look, they had all these patients safely using these together.’ It’s going to help us improve access for patients.”

Though Dr. Robblee typically uses old-school pen-and-calendar diaries with her patients, she also sees potential for the use of apps going forward, just as she sees for virtual health care.

“I’ve found telemedicine in general to be a really great addition to the migraine world, and this plays into our ability to use telemedicine paired with tracking,” Dr. Robblee said. “In so many studies, we’re doing a diary anyway, so if there are standard diaries and programs we’re all using, that would be a nice way to do these.”

She notes that most symptom tracking for pain is subjective already, and these apps often include the options to print out the data or to export or transfer it electronically to physicians. “It’s giving us meaningful data,” she said.

The research was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Lipton has received honoraria or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Teva, Vector and Vedanta Research. He holds stock options in Biohaven and Ctrl M. Dr. Robblee is a principal investigator for a study sponsored by Eli Lilly and receives stipends for MedLink Neurology and Neurodiem.

Three or more weeks of oral anticoagulation (OAC) sometimes isn’t up to the job of clearing any potentially embolic left atrial (LA) thrombi before procedures like cardioversion or catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Such OAC-defiant LA thrombi aren’t common, nor are they rare enough to ignore, suggests a new meta-analysis that might also have identified features that predispose to them.

Such predictors of LA clots that persist despite OAC could potentially guide selective use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of more routine policies to either use or not use TEE for thrombus rule-out before rhythm-control procedures, researchers propose.

Their prevalence was about 2.7% among the study’s more than 14,000 patients who received at least 3 weeks of OAC with either vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) before undergoing TEE.

But OAC-resistant LA thrombi were two- to four-times as common in patients with than without certain features, including AF other than paroxysmal and higher CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk-stratification scores.

“TEE imaging in select patients at an elevated risk of LA thrombus, despite anticoagulation status, may be a reasonable approach to minimize the risk of thromboembolic complications following cardioversion or catheter ablation,” propose the study’s authors, led by Antony Lurie, BMSC, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont. Their report was published in the June 15 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Guidelines don’t encourage TEE before cardioversion in patients who have been on OAC for at least 3 weeks, the group notes, and policies on TEE use before AF ablation vary widely regardless of anticoagulation status.

The current study suggests that 3 weeks of OAC isn’t enough for a substantial number of patients, who might be put at thromboembolic risk if TEE were to be skipped before rhythm-control procedures.

Conversely, many patients unlikely to have LA thrombi get preprocedure TEE anyway. That can happen “irrespective of how long they’ve been anticoagulated, their pattern of atrial fibrillation, or their stroke risk,” senior author Jorge A. Wong, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

But “TEE is an invasive imaging modality, so it is associated with small element of risk.” The current study, Dr. Wong said, points to potential risk-stratification tools clinicians might use to guide more selective TEE screening.

“At sites where TEEs are done all the time for patients undergoing ablation, one could use several of these risk markers to perhaps tailor use of TEE in individuals,” Dr. Wong said. “For example, in people with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, we found that the risk of left atrial appendage clot was approximately 1% or less.” Screening by TEE might reasonably be avoided in such patients.

“Fortunately, continued oral anticoagulation already yields low peri-procedural stroke rates,” observes an accompanying editorial from Paulus Kirchhof, MD, and Christoph Sinning, MD, from the University Heart & Vascular Center and German Centre of Cardiovascular Research, Hamburg.

“Based on this new analysis of existing data, a risk-based use of TEE imaging in anticoagulated patients could enable further improvement in the safe delivery of rhythm control interventions in patients with AF,” the editorialists agree.

The meta-analysis covered 10 prospective and 25 retrospective studies with a total of 14,653 patients that reported whether LA thrombus was present in patients with AF or atrial flutter (AFL) who underwent TEE after at least 3 weeks of VKA or DOAC therapy. Reports for 30 of the studies identified patients by rhythm-control procedure, and the remaining five didn’t specify TEE indications.

The weighted mean prevalence of LA thrombus at TEE was 2.73% (95% confidence interval, 1.95%-3.80%). The finding was not significantly changed in separate sensitivity analyses, the report says, including one limited to studies with low risk of bias and others excluding patients with valvular AF, interrupted OAC, heparin bridging, or subtherapeutic anticoagulation, respectively.

Patients treated with VKA and DOACs showed similar prevalences of LA thrombi, with means of 2.80% and 3.12%, respectively (P = .674). The prevalence was significantly higher in patients:

• with nonparoxysmal than with paroxysmal AF/AFL (4.81% vs. 1.03%; P < .001)
• undergoing cardioversion than ablation (5.55% vs. 1.65; P < .001)
• with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of at least 3 than with scores of 2 or less (6.31% vs. 1.06%; P < .001).

A limitation of the study, observe Dr. Kirchhof and Dr. Sinning, “is that all patients had a clinical indication for a TEE, which might be a selection bias. When a thrombus was found on TEE, clinical judgment led to postponing of the procedure,” thereby avoiding potential thromboembolism.

“Thus, the paper cannot demonstrate that presence of a thrombus on TEE is related to peri-procedural ischemic stroke,” they write.

The literature puts the risk for stroke or systemic embolism at well under 1% for patients anticoagulated with either VKA or DOACs for at least 3 weeks prior to cardioversion, in contrast to the nearly 3% prevalence of LA appendage thrombus by TEE in the current analysis, Dr. Wong observed.

“So we’re seeing a lot more left atrial appendage thrombus than we would see stroke,” but there wasn’t a way to determine whether that increases the stroke risk, he agreed.Dr. Wong, Dr. Lurie, and the other authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Kirchhof discloses receiving partial support “from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation” and to being listed as inventor on two AF-related patents held by the University of Birmingham. Dr. Sinning reports no relevant relationships. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Three or more weeks of oral anticoagulation (OAC) sometimes isn’t up to the job of clearing any potentially embolic left atrial (LA) thrombi before procedures like cardioversion or catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Such OAC-defiant LA thrombi aren’t common, nor are they rare enough to ignore, suggests a new meta-analysis that might also have identified features that predispose to them.

Such predictors of LA clots that persist despite OAC could potentially guide selective use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of more routine policies to either use or not use TEE for thrombus rule-out before rhythm-control procedures, researchers propose.

Their prevalence was about 2.7% among the study’s more than 14,000 patients who received at least 3 weeks of OAC with either vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) before undergoing TEE.

But OAC-resistant LA thrombi were two- to four-times as common in patients with than without certain features, including AF other than paroxysmal and higher CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk-stratification scores.

“TEE imaging in select patients at an elevated risk of LA thrombus, despite anticoagulation status, may be a reasonable approach to minimize the risk of thromboembolic complications following cardioversion or catheter ablation,” propose the study’s authors, led by Antony Lurie, BMSC, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont. Their report was published in the June 15 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Guidelines don’t encourage TEE before cardioversion in patients who have been on OAC for at least 3 weeks, the group notes, and policies on TEE use before AF ablation vary widely regardless of anticoagulation status.

The current study suggests that 3 weeks of OAC isn’t enough for a substantial number of patients, who might be put at thromboembolic risk if TEE were to be skipped before rhythm-control procedures.

Conversely, many patients unlikely to have LA thrombi get preprocedure TEE anyway. That can happen “irrespective of how long they’ve been anticoagulated, their pattern of atrial fibrillation, or their stroke risk,” senior author Jorge A. Wong, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

But “TEE is an invasive imaging modality, so it is associated with small element of risk.” The current study, Dr. Wong said, points to potential risk-stratification tools clinicians might use to guide more selective TEE screening.

“At sites where TEEs are done all the time for patients undergoing ablation, one could use several of these risk markers to perhaps tailor use of TEE in individuals,” Dr. Wong said. “For example, in people with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, we found that the risk of left atrial appendage clot was approximately 1% or less.” Screening by TEE might reasonably be avoided in such patients.

“Fortunately, continued oral anticoagulation already yields low peri-procedural stroke rates,” observes an accompanying editorial from Paulus Kirchhof, MD, and Christoph Sinning, MD, from the University Heart & Vascular Center and German Centre of Cardiovascular Research, Hamburg.

“Based on this new analysis of existing data, a risk-based use of TEE imaging in anticoagulated patients could enable further improvement in the safe delivery of rhythm control interventions in patients with AF,” the editorialists agree.

The meta-analysis covered 10 prospective and 25 retrospective studies with a total of 14,653 patients that reported whether LA thrombus was present in patients with AF or atrial flutter (AFL) who underwent TEE after at least 3 weeks of VKA or DOAC therapy. Reports for 30 of the studies identified patients by rhythm-control procedure, and the remaining five didn’t specify TEE indications.

The weighted mean prevalence of LA thrombus at TEE was 2.73% (95% confidence interval, 1.95%-3.80%). The finding was not significantly changed in separate sensitivity analyses, the report says, including one limited to studies with low risk of bias and others excluding patients with valvular AF, interrupted OAC, heparin bridging, or subtherapeutic anticoagulation, respectively.

Patients treated with VKA and DOACs showed similar prevalences of LA thrombi, with means of 2.80% and 3.12%, respectively (P = .674). The prevalence was significantly higher in patients:

• with nonparoxysmal than with paroxysmal AF/AFL (4.81% vs. 1.03%; P < .001)
• undergoing cardioversion than ablation (5.55% vs. 1.65; P < .001)
• with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of at least 3 than with scores of 2 or less (6.31% vs. 1.06%; P < .001).

A limitation of the study, observe Dr. Kirchhof and Dr. Sinning, “is that all patients had a clinical indication for a TEE, which might be a selection bias. When a thrombus was found on TEE, clinical judgment led to postponing of the procedure,” thereby avoiding potential thromboembolism.

“Thus, the paper cannot demonstrate that presence of a thrombus on TEE is related to peri-procedural ischemic stroke,” they write.

The literature puts the risk for stroke or systemic embolism at well under 1% for patients anticoagulated with either VKA or DOACs for at least 3 weeks prior to cardioversion, in contrast to the nearly 3% prevalence of LA appendage thrombus by TEE in the current analysis, Dr. Wong observed.

“So we’re seeing a lot more left atrial appendage thrombus than we would see stroke,” but there wasn’t a way to determine whether that increases the stroke risk, he agreed.Dr. Wong, Dr. Lurie, and the other authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Kirchhof discloses receiving partial support “from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation” and to being listed as inventor on two AF-related patents held by the University of Birmingham. Dr. Sinning reports no relevant relationships. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Three or more weeks of oral anticoagulation (OAC) sometimes isn’t up to the job of clearing any potentially embolic left atrial (LA) thrombi before procedures like cardioversion or catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Such OAC-defiant LA thrombi aren’t common, nor are they rare enough to ignore, suggests a new meta-analysis that might also have identified features that predispose to them.

Such predictors of LA clots that persist despite OAC could potentially guide selective use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) instead of more routine policies to either use or not use TEE for thrombus rule-out before rhythm-control procedures, researchers propose.

Their prevalence was about 2.7% among the study’s more than 14,000 patients who received at least 3 weeks of OAC with either vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) before undergoing TEE.

But OAC-resistant LA thrombi were two- to four-times as common in patients with than without certain features, including AF other than paroxysmal and higher CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk-stratification scores.

“TEE imaging in select patients at an elevated risk of LA thrombus, despite anticoagulation status, may be a reasonable approach to minimize the risk of thromboembolic complications following cardioversion or catheter ablation,” propose the study’s authors, led by Antony Lurie, BMSC, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont. Their report was published in the June 15 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Guidelines don’t encourage TEE before cardioversion in patients who have been on OAC for at least 3 weeks, the group notes, and policies on TEE use before AF ablation vary widely regardless of anticoagulation status.

The current study suggests that 3 weeks of OAC isn’t enough for a substantial number of patients, who might be put at thromboembolic risk if TEE were to be skipped before rhythm-control procedures.

Conversely, many patients unlikely to have LA thrombi get preprocedure TEE anyway. That can happen “irrespective of how long they’ve been anticoagulated, their pattern of atrial fibrillation, or their stroke risk,” senior author Jorge A. Wong, MD, MPH, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

But “TEE is an invasive imaging modality, so it is associated with small element of risk.” The current study, Dr. Wong said, points to potential risk-stratification tools clinicians might use to guide more selective TEE screening.

“At sites where TEEs are done all the time for patients undergoing ablation, one could use several of these risk markers to perhaps tailor use of TEE in individuals,” Dr. Wong said. “For example, in people with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, we found that the risk of left atrial appendage clot was approximately 1% or less.” Screening by TEE might reasonably be avoided in such patients.

“Fortunately, continued oral anticoagulation already yields low peri-procedural stroke rates,” observes an accompanying editorial from Paulus Kirchhof, MD, and Christoph Sinning, MD, from the University Heart & Vascular Center and German Centre of Cardiovascular Research, Hamburg.

“Based on this new analysis of existing data, a risk-based use of TEE imaging in anticoagulated patients could enable further improvement in the safe delivery of rhythm control interventions in patients with AF,” the editorialists agree.

The meta-analysis covered 10 prospective and 25 retrospective studies with a total of 14,653 patients that reported whether LA thrombus was present in patients with AF or atrial flutter (AFL) who underwent TEE after at least 3 weeks of VKA or DOAC therapy. Reports for 30 of the studies identified patients by rhythm-control procedure, and the remaining five didn’t specify TEE indications.

The weighted mean prevalence of LA thrombus at TEE was 2.73% (95% confidence interval, 1.95%-3.80%). The finding was not significantly changed in separate sensitivity analyses, the report says, including one limited to studies with low risk of bias and others excluding patients with valvular AF, interrupted OAC, heparin bridging, or subtherapeutic anticoagulation, respectively.

Patients treated with VKA and DOACs showed similar prevalences of LA thrombi, with means of 2.80% and 3.12%, respectively (P = .674). The prevalence was significantly higher in patients:

• with nonparoxysmal than with paroxysmal AF/AFL (4.81% vs. 1.03%; P < .001)
• undergoing cardioversion than ablation (5.55% vs. 1.65; P < .001)
• with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of at least 3 than with scores of 2 or less (6.31% vs. 1.06%; P < .001).

A limitation of the study, observe Dr. Kirchhof and Dr. Sinning, “is that all patients had a clinical indication for a TEE, which might be a selection bias. When a thrombus was found on TEE, clinical judgment led to postponing of the procedure,” thereby avoiding potential thromboembolism.

“Thus, the paper cannot demonstrate that presence of a thrombus on TEE is related to peri-procedural ischemic stroke,” they write.

The literature puts the risk for stroke or systemic embolism at well under 1% for patients anticoagulated with either VKA or DOACs for at least 3 weeks prior to cardioversion, in contrast to the nearly 3% prevalence of LA appendage thrombus by TEE in the current analysis, Dr. Wong observed.

“So we’re seeing a lot more left atrial appendage thrombus than we would see stroke,” but there wasn’t a way to determine whether that increases the stroke risk, he agreed.Dr. Wong, Dr. Lurie, and the other authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Kirchhof discloses receiving partial support “from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation” and to being listed as inventor on two AF-related patents held by the University of Birmingham. Dr. Sinning reports no relevant relationships. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.