User login
Neurology Reviews covers innovative and emerging news in neurology and neuroscience every month, with a focus on practical approaches to treating Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, headache, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and other neurologic disorders.
PML
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Rituxan
The leading independent newspaper covering neurology news and commentary.
Physician convicted in buprenorphine scheme faces up to 20 years in prison
A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.
The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement.
Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.
Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.
Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.
Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired.
Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”
Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances.
However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.
The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.
The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement.
Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.
Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.
Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.
Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired.
Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”
Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances.
However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.
The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.
The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement.
Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.
Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.
Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.
Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired.
Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”
Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances.
However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.
The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Combination therapy may benefit patients with migraine
, according to a large retrospective analysis. The results lend hope that the combination may be synergistic, according to Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad. Dr. Blumenfeld presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. The study was published online April 21 in Pain Therapy.
The retrospective analysis showed a 4-day reduction in headache days per month. In contrast, in the pivotal study for erenumab, the most commonly used anti-CGRP antibody among subjects in the study, showed a 2-day benefit in a subanalysis of patients who had failed at least two oral preventives.
There is mechanistic evidence to suggest the two therapies could be synergistic. OnabotulinumtoxinA is believed to inhibit the release of CGRP, and antibodies reduce CGRP levels. OnabotulinumtoxinA prevents activation of C-fibers in the trigeminal sensory afferents, but does not affect A-delta fibers.
On the other hand, most data indicate that the anti-CGRP antibody fremanezumab prevents activation of A-delta but not C-fibers, and a recent review argues that CGRP antibody nonresponders may have migraines driven by C-fibers or other pathways. “Thus, concomitant use of medications blocking the activation of meningeal C-fibers may provide a synergistic effect on the trigeminal nociceptive pathway,” the authors wrote.
Study finding match clinical practice
The results of the new study strengthen the case that the combination is effective, though proof would require prospective, randomized trials. “I think that it really gives credibility to what we are seeing in practice, which is that combined therapy often is much better than therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA alone, said Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Friedman is professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.
The extra 4 migraine-free days per month is a significant benefit, said Stewart Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “It’s an extra month and a half of no disability per year, and that’s on top of what onabotulinumtoxinA does. So it’s really a very important clinical finding,” Dr. Tepper said in an interview.
Many insurance companies refuse to pay for the combination therapy, despite the fact that relatively few migraine patients would likely seek it out, according to Dr. Friedman. “It’s just kind of a shame,” she said.
Insurance companies often object that the combination therapy is experimental, despite the widespread use of combination therapies in migraine. “It’s no more experimental in my opinion than any other combination of medications that we use. For people that have severe migraine, we use combination therapy all the time,” said Dr. Friedman.
Improvements with combination therapy
The study was a chart review of 257 patients who started on onabotulinumtoxinA and later initiated anti-CGRP antibody therapy. A total of 104 completed four visits after initiation of anti-CGRP antibody therapy (completers). Before starting any therapy, patients reported an average of 21 headache days per month in the overall group, and 22 among completers. That frequency dropped to 12 in both groups after onabotulinumtoxinA therapy (overall group difference, –9 days; 95% confidence interval, –8 to –11 days; completers group difference, –10; 95% CI, –7 to –12 days).
A total of 77.8% of subjects in the overall cohort took erenumab, 16.3% took galcanezumab, and 5.8% took fremanezumab. In the completers cohort, the percentages were 84.5%, 10.7%, and 4.9%, respectively.
Compared with baseline, both completers and noncompleters had clinically significant improvements in disability, as measured by at least a 5-point improvement in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score at the 3-month visit (–5.8 for completers and –6.3 for the overall cohort group), the 6-month visit (–6.6 and –11.1), the 9-month visit (–8.3 and –6.1), and 1 year (–12.7 and –8.4).
At the first visit, 33.0% of completers had at least a 5-point reduction in MIDAS, as did 36.0% of the overall cohort group, and the trend continued at 6 months (39.8% and 45.1%), 9 months (43.7% and 43.7%), and at 1 year (45.3% and 44.8%).
The study was funded by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld has served on advisory boards for Aeon, AbbVie, Amgen, Alder, Biohaven, Teva, Supernus, Promius, Eaglet, and Lilly, and has received funding for speaking from AbbVie, Amgen, Pernix, Supernus, Depomed, Avanir, Promius, Teva, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Theranica. Dr. Tepper has consulted for Teva. Dr. Friedman has been on the advisory board for Allergan, Amgen, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and has received grant support from Allergan and Eli Lilly.
, according to a large retrospective analysis. The results lend hope that the combination may be synergistic, according to Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad. Dr. Blumenfeld presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. The study was published online April 21 in Pain Therapy.
The retrospective analysis showed a 4-day reduction in headache days per month. In contrast, in the pivotal study for erenumab, the most commonly used anti-CGRP antibody among subjects in the study, showed a 2-day benefit in a subanalysis of patients who had failed at least two oral preventives.
There is mechanistic evidence to suggest the two therapies could be synergistic. OnabotulinumtoxinA is believed to inhibit the release of CGRP, and antibodies reduce CGRP levels. OnabotulinumtoxinA prevents activation of C-fibers in the trigeminal sensory afferents, but does not affect A-delta fibers.
On the other hand, most data indicate that the anti-CGRP antibody fremanezumab prevents activation of A-delta but not C-fibers, and a recent review argues that CGRP antibody nonresponders may have migraines driven by C-fibers or other pathways. “Thus, concomitant use of medications blocking the activation of meningeal C-fibers may provide a synergistic effect on the trigeminal nociceptive pathway,” the authors wrote.
Study finding match clinical practice
The results of the new study strengthen the case that the combination is effective, though proof would require prospective, randomized trials. “I think that it really gives credibility to what we are seeing in practice, which is that combined therapy often is much better than therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA alone, said Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Friedman is professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.
The extra 4 migraine-free days per month is a significant benefit, said Stewart Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “It’s an extra month and a half of no disability per year, and that’s on top of what onabotulinumtoxinA does. So it’s really a very important clinical finding,” Dr. Tepper said in an interview.
Many insurance companies refuse to pay for the combination therapy, despite the fact that relatively few migraine patients would likely seek it out, according to Dr. Friedman. “It’s just kind of a shame,” she said.
Insurance companies often object that the combination therapy is experimental, despite the widespread use of combination therapies in migraine. “It’s no more experimental in my opinion than any other combination of medications that we use. For people that have severe migraine, we use combination therapy all the time,” said Dr. Friedman.
Improvements with combination therapy
The study was a chart review of 257 patients who started on onabotulinumtoxinA and later initiated anti-CGRP antibody therapy. A total of 104 completed four visits after initiation of anti-CGRP antibody therapy (completers). Before starting any therapy, patients reported an average of 21 headache days per month in the overall group, and 22 among completers. That frequency dropped to 12 in both groups after onabotulinumtoxinA therapy (overall group difference, –9 days; 95% confidence interval, –8 to –11 days; completers group difference, –10; 95% CI, –7 to –12 days).
A total of 77.8% of subjects in the overall cohort took erenumab, 16.3% took galcanezumab, and 5.8% took fremanezumab. In the completers cohort, the percentages were 84.5%, 10.7%, and 4.9%, respectively.
Compared with baseline, both completers and noncompleters had clinically significant improvements in disability, as measured by at least a 5-point improvement in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score at the 3-month visit (–5.8 for completers and –6.3 for the overall cohort group), the 6-month visit (–6.6 and –11.1), the 9-month visit (–8.3 and –6.1), and 1 year (–12.7 and –8.4).
At the first visit, 33.0% of completers had at least a 5-point reduction in MIDAS, as did 36.0% of the overall cohort group, and the trend continued at 6 months (39.8% and 45.1%), 9 months (43.7% and 43.7%), and at 1 year (45.3% and 44.8%).
The study was funded by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld has served on advisory boards for Aeon, AbbVie, Amgen, Alder, Biohaven, Teva, Supernus, Promius, Eaglet, and Lilly, and has received funding for speaking from AbbVie, Amgen, Pernix, Supernus, Depomed, Avanir, Promius, Teva, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Theranica. Dr. Tepper has consulted for Teva. Dr. Friedman has been on the advisory board for Allergan, Amgen, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and has received grant support from Allergan and Eli Lilly.
, according to a large retrospective analysis. The results lend hope that the combination may be synergistic, according to Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad. Dr. Blumenfeld presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. The study was published online April 21 in Pain Therapy.
The retrospective analysis showed a 4-day reduction in headache days per month. In contrast, in the pivotal study for erenumab, the most commonly used anti-CGRP antibody among subjects in the study, showed a 2-day benefit in a subanalysis of patients who had failed at least two oral preventives.
There is mechanistic evidence to suggest the two therapies could be synergistic. OnabotulinumtoxinA is believed to inhibit the release of CGRP, and antibodies reduce CGRP levels. OnabotulinumtoxinA prevents activation of C-fibers in the trigeminal sensory afferents, but does not affect A-delta fibers.
On the other hand, most data indicate that the anti-CGRP antibody fremanezumab prevents activation of A-delta but not C-fibers, and a recent review argues that CGRP antibody nonresponders may have migraines driven by C-fibers or other pathways. “Thus, concomitant use of medications blocking the activation of meningeal C-fibers may provide a synergistic effect on the trigeminal nociceptive pathway,” the authors wrote.
Study finding match clinical practice
The results of the new study strengthen the case that the combination is effective, though proof would require prospective, randomized trials. “I think that it really gives credibility to what we are seeing in practice, which is that combined therapy often is much better than therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA alone, said Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Friedman is professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.
The extra 4 migraine-free days per month is a significant benefit, said Stewart Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “It’s an extra month and a half of no disability per year, and that’s on top of what onabotulinumtoxinA does. So it’s really a very important clinical finding,” Dr. Tepper said in an interview.
Many insurance companies refuse to pay for the combination therapy, despite the fact that relatively few migraine patients would likely seek it out, according to Dr. Friedman. “It’s just kind of a shame,” she said.
Insurance companies often object that the combination therapy is experimental, despite the widespread use of combination therapies in migraine. “It’s no more experimental in my opinion than any other combination of medications that we use. For people that have severe migraine, we use combination therapy all the time,” said Dr. Friedman.
Improvements with combination therapy
The study was a chart review of 257 patients who started on onabotulinumtoxinA and later initiated anti-CGRP antibody therapy. A total of 104 completed four visits after initiation of anti-CGRP antibody therapy (completers). Before starting any therapy, patients reported an average of 21 headache days per month in the overall group, and 22 among completers. That frequency dropped to 12 in both groups after onabotulinumtoxinA therapy (overall group difference, –9 days; 95% confidence interval, –8 to –11 days; completers group difference, –10; 95% CI, –7 to –12 days).
A total of 77.8% of subjects in the overall cohort took erenumab, 16.3% took galcanezumab, and 5.8% took fremanezumab. In the completers cohort, the percentages were 84.5%, 10.7%, and 4.9%, respectively.
Compared with baseline, both completers and noncompleters had clinically significant improvements in disability, as measured by at least a 5-point improvement in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score at the 3-month visit (–5.8 for completers and –6.3 for the overall cohort group), the 6-month visit (–6.6 and –11.1), the 9-month visit (–8.3 and –6.1), and 1 year (–12.7 and –8.4).
At the first visit, 33.0% of completers had at least a 5-point reduction in MIDAS, as did 36.0% of the overall cohort group, and the trend continued at 6 months (39.8% and 45.1%), 9 months (43.7% and 43.7%), and at 1 year (45.3% and 44.8%).
The study was funded by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld has served on advisory boards for Aeon, AbbVie, Amgen, Alder, Biohaven, Teva, Supernus, Promius, Eaglet, and Lilly, and has received funding for speaking from AbbVie, Amgen, Pernix, Supernus, Depomed, Avanir, Promius, Teva, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Theranica. Dr. Tepper has consulted for Teva. Dr. Friedman has been on the advisory board for Allergan, Amgen, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and has received grant support from Allergan and Eli Lilly.
FROM AHS 2021
Schizophrenia meds a key contributor to cognitive impairment
Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.
“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.
“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.
The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Striking’ results
Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.
They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).
The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.
About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.
Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.
For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
Lightening the load
Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.
“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release.
Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.
Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.
The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
“The results imply that if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.
“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
Confirmatory findings
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”
“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.
“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.
“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.
“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.
The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Striking’ results
Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.
They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).
The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.
About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.
Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.
For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
Lightening the load
Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.
“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release.
Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.
Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.
The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
“The results imply that if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.
“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
Confirmatory findings
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”
“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.
“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.
“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.
“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.
The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Striking’ results
Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.
They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).
The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.
About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.
Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.
For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
Lightening the load
Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.
“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release.
Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.
Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.
The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.
“The results imply that if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.
“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
Confirmatory findings
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”
“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.
“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New obesity target? Dopamine circuit in brainstem affects satiety
Researchers have discovered a new dopaminergic neural circuit leading to the hindbrain that is involved in satiety (feeling full and eating cessation) in mice, which may eventually lead to new ways to treat obesity.
Moreover, when mice were given methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) – a stimulant approved to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a well-known side effect of decreasing appetite – signals in this dopaminergic pathway were enhanced and the mice ate less.
The study by Yong Han, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues was published online May 27 in Science Advances.
“We identified a new dopamine neural circuit from the midbrain to the hindbrain (brainstem) that regulates feeding behavior through an enhanced satiation response,” senior author Qi Wu, PhD, assistant professor in pediatrics-nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine, summarized in an interview.
The findings suggest that “people with obesity have a compromised dopaminergic neural pathway, presumably in ways that delay the satiation response, which makes them eat more, have a larger meal,” he explained.
Newly identified brain circuit plays a key role in satiety response
The study is about a circuit in the brain that helps precisely regulate the size of food portion consumed, Dr. Wu emphasized in a statement from the university, adding that the satiation response is as important as appetite.
Importantly, the results also provide clues about how methylphenidate can lead to weight loss.
Regulators have deemed that methylphenidate, a controlled substance with other side effects such as anxiety and a fast heart rate, is safe and effective for ADHD, Dr. Wu noted.
He speculated that, “If researchers want to do clinical trials of methylphenidate for obesity, it ultimately could evolve to be an anti-obesity drug, alone or combined with other drugs, or possibly derivatives of methylphenidate could be tested.”
The brain circuit “we discovered is the first to be fully described to regulate portion size via dopamine signaling,” Dr. Han stressed in the statement.
“Our new study shows that a circuit connecting neurons that produce dopamine, a chemical messenger previously known for the regulation of motivation and pleasure, has a new [critical] role in the control of feeding through dynamically regulating the satiety response,” he explained.
Brain signals that control portion size
Earlier studies that investigated how the dopaminergic system may regulate food intake, appetite, and body weight, have produced conflicting results, Dr. Wu said.
The researchers performed several experiments in mice that included the use of cell-specific circuitry mapping, optogenetics, and real-time recordings of brain activity.
They identified a new dopaminergic neural circuit comprised of dopaminergic neurons in the caudal ventral tegmental area (DA-VTA neurons) in the midbrain that directly innervate dopamine receptor D1-expressing neurons within the lateral parabrachial nucleus (DRD1-LPBN neurons) in the hindbrain.
There were four main findings:
- DA-VTA neurons were activated immediately before the cessation of each feeding bout.
- Actively inhibiting DA-VTA neurons before the end of each feeding bout prolonged the feeding.
- Activating DRD1-LPBN neurons inhibited feeding.
- Mice that lacked the DRD1 gene ate much more and gained weight.
“Our study illuminates a hindbrain dopaminergic circuit that controls feeding through dynamic regulation in satiety response and meal structure,” the researchers reiterate.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, NIH Digestive Diseases Center, Pew Charitable Trust, American Diabetes Association, Baylor Collaborative Faculty Research Investment Program, USDA/CRIS, USDA/ARS, American Heart Association, and NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, and by Pew and Kavli scholarships. The researchers have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have discovered a new dopaminergic neural circuit leading to the hindbrain that is involved in satiety (feeling full and eating cessation) in mice, which may eventually lead to new ways to treat obesity.
Moreover, when mice were given methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) – a stimulant approved to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a well-known side effect of decreasing appetite – signals in this dopaminergic pathway were enhanced and the mice ate less.
The study by Yong Han, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues was published online May 27 in Science Advances.
“We identified a new dopamine neural circuit from the midbrain to the hindbrain (brainstem) that regulates feeding behavior through an enhanced satiation response,” senior author Qi Wu, PhD, assistant professor in pediatrics-nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine, summarized in an interview.
The findings suggest that “people with obesity have a compromised dopaminergic neural pathway, presumably in ways that delay the satiation response, which makes them eat more, have a larger meal,” he explained.
Newly identified brain circuit plays a key role in satiety response
The study is about a circuit in the brain that helps precisely regulate the size of food portion consumed, Dr. Wu emphasized in a statement from the university, adding that the satiation response is as important as appetite.
Importantly, the results also provide clues about how methylphenidate can lead to weight loss.
Regulators have deemed that methylphenidate, a controlled substance with other side effects such as anxiety and a fast heart rate, is safe and effective for ADHD, Dr. Wu noted.
He speculated that, “If researchers want to do clinical trials of methylphenidate for obesity, it ultimately could evolve to be an anti-obesity drug, alone or combined with other drugs, or possibly derivatives of methylphenidate could be tested.”
The brain circuit “we discovered is the first to be fully described to regulate portion size via dopamine signaling,” Dr. Han stressed in the statement.
“Our new study shows that a circuit connecting neurons that produce dopamine, a chemical messenger previously known for the regulation of motivation and pleasure, has a new [critical] role in the control of feeding through dynamically regulating the satiety response,” he explained.
Brain signals that control portion size
Earlier studies that investigated how the dopaminergic system may regulate food intake, appetite, and body weight, have produced conflicting results, Dr. Wu said.
The researchers performed several experiments in mice that included the use of cell-specific circuitry mapping, optogenetics, and real-time recordings of brain activity.
They identified a new dopaminergic neural circuit comprised of dopaminergic neurons in the caudal ventral tegmental area (DA-VTA neurons) in the midbrain that directly innervate dopamine receptor D1-expressing neurons within the lateral parabrachial nucleus (DRD1-LPBN neurons) in the hindbrain.
There were four main findings:
- DA-VTA neurons were activated immediately before the cessation of each feeding bout.
- Actively inhibiting DA-VTA neurons before the end of each feeding bout prolonged the feeding.
- Activating DRD1-LPBN neurons inhibited feeding.
- Mice that lacked the DRD1 gene ate much more and gained weight.
“Our study illuminates a hindbrain dopaminergic circuit that controls feeding through dynamic regulation in satiety response and meal structure,” the researchers reiterate.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, NIH Digestive Diseases Center, Pew Charitable Trust, American Diabetes Association, Baylor Collaborative Faculty Research Investment Program, USDA/CRIS, USDA/ARS, American Heart Association, and NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, and by Pew and Kavli scholarships. The researchers have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have discovered a new dopaminergic neural circuit leading to the hindbrain that is involved in satiety (feeling full and eating cessation) in mice, which may eventually lead to new ways to treat obesity.
Moreover, when mice were given methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) – a stimulant approved to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a well-known side effect of decreasing appetite – signals in this dopaminergic pathway were enhanced and the mice ate less.
The study by Yong Han, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues was published online May 27 in Science Advances.
“We identified a new dopamine neural circuit from the midbrain to the hindbrain (brainstem) that regulates feeding behavior through an enhanced satiation response,” senior author Qi Wu, PhD, assistant professor in pediatrics-nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine, summarized in an interview.
The findings suggest that “people with obesity have a compromised dopaminergic neural pathway, presumably in ways that delay the satiation response, which makes them eat more, have a larger meal,” he explained.
Newly identified brain circuit plays a key role in satiety response
The study is about a circuit in the brain that helps precisely regulate the size of food portion consumed, Dr. Wu emphasized in a statement from the university, adding that the satiation response is as important as appetite.
Importantly, the results also provide clues about how methylphenidate can lead to weight loss.
Regulators have deemed that methylphenidate, a controlled substance with other side effects such as anxiety and a fast heart rate, is safe and effective for ADHD, Dr. Wu noted.
He speculated that, “If researchers want to do clinical trials of methylphenidate for obesity, it ultimately could evolve to be an anti-obesity drug, alone or combined with other drugs, or possibly derivatives of methylphenidate could be tested.”
The brain circuit “we discovered is the first to be fully described to regulate portion size via dopamine signaling,” Dr. Han stressed in the statement.
“Our new study shows that a circuit connecting neurons that produce dopamine, a chemical messenger previously known for the regulation of motivation and pleasure, has a new [critical] role in the control of feeding through dynamically regulating the satiety response,” he explained.
Brain signals that control portion size
Earlier studies that investigated how the dopaminergic system may regulate food intake, appetite, and body weight, have produced conflicting results, Dr. Wu said.
The researchers performed several experiments in mice that included the use of cell-specific circuitry mapping, optogenetics, and real-time recordings of brain activity.
They identified a new dopaminergic neural circuit comprised of dopaminergic neurons in the caudal ventral tegmental area (DA-VTA neurons) in the midbrain that directly innervate dopamine receptor D1-expressing neurons within the lateral parabrachial nucleus (DRD1-LPBN neurons) in the hindbrain.
There were four main findings:
- DA-VTA neurons were activated immediately before the cessation of each feeding bout.
- Actively inhibiting DA-VTA neurons before the end of each feeding bout prolonged the feeding.
- Activating DRD1-LPBN neurons inhibited feeding.
- Mice that lacked the DRD1 gene ate much more and gained weight.
“Our study illuminates a hindbrain dopaminergic circuit that controls feeding through dynamic regulation in satiety response and meal structure,” the researchers reiterate.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, NIH Digestive Diseases Center, Pew Charitable Trust, American Diabetes Association, Baylor Collaborative Faculty Research Investment Program, USDA/CRIS, USDA/ARS, American Heart Association, and NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, and by Pew and Kavli scholarships. The researchers have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Almost half of patients with migraine are reluctant to seek care
, new research shows. A survey of nearly 18,000 participants with migraine showed that 46% were reluctant to consult a physician about their condition. Among those who hesitated, 58% ultimately consulted a physician, but 42% did not.
Common reasons for failure to seek treatment included believing that migraine was not severe enough to warrant a consultation, worries about cost and health insurance, and concern that the health care professional would not take the disorder seriously.
This is the first study to query patients with migraine regarding whether and why they have hesitated to seek care, said coinvestigator Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic sciences and director of the division of headache medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Previous studies have noted differences in care seeking by demographic or other distinguishing characteristics but have not asked people with migraine whether they actually intended to seek or not seek such care,” he said.
Dr. Shapiro presented the findings at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Delays prevent diagnosis and care
For patients with migraine, hesitating to consult a physician causes delays in, and sometimes prevents, receiving a diagnosis and appropriate care.
To assess the proportion of patients who hesitate to seek a consultation for migraine care, as well as reasons for doing so, the investigators examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study. OVERCOME incorporated a prospective web-based survey that was administered to a representative sample of 41,925 individuals in the United States.
Eligible participants who completed the study’s baseline assessment had had at least one migraine attack in the previous year and either met criteria for migraine on the basis of a validated diagnostic screen or provided a self-report of a migraine diagnosis by a health care practitioner. In all, 39,494 participants reported whether they had hesitated to seek a consultation from a physician for migraine care. Of these, 17,951 were included in the analysis.
Among the 46% who hesitated to seek care, 58% ultimately sought migraine care, and 42% did not.
The investigators also examined sociodemographic characteristics and migraine-related data, including the number of monthly headache days and information regarding nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.
Patient-reported outcomes included days with migraine-related disability during the past 3 months, treatment optimization, and the degree to which migraine limited regular activities. Investigators also examined participants’ health care use in the previous 12 months and reasons for hesitating to seek migraine care.
Reasons for hesitancy
A total of 17,920 participants provided reasons for hesitating to seek a migraine consultation. These included a desire to take care of migraine attacks on one’s own (45%), the belief that migraine would not be taken seriously (35%), the belief that the migraine attacks were not serious or painful enough (29%), inability to afford or unwillingness to spend money on care (29%), lack of or inadequate health insurance (21%), and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (19%).
Reasons for hesitation differed between participants who ultimately sought a consultation with a physician and those who did not. Those who did not receive a consultation (n = 7,495) were more likely to want to take care of the migraine attacks on their own (48% vs. 43%) and to believe the attacks were not serious or painful enough (36% vs. 25%).
Participants who hesitated but later sought a consultation were more likely to report concerns that migraine would not be taken seriously (38% vs. 31%) and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (22% vs. 15%).
Among those who did not seek a consultation versus those who did, a significantly higher proportion were women (76% vs. 73%; P < .001).
“This is an interesting finding, since prior studies have indicated that, overall, women with migraine are more likely to have consulted a doctor for it – and also more likely to have been diagnosed with it,” Dr. Shapiro said.
On the other hand, women were 30% more likely to visit emergency departments or urgent care clinics for migraine care than men, he noted.
“These findings suggest some women may be experiencing particular barriers to receiving successful consultation care and that they may persistently hesitate to seek it,” said Dr. Shapiro. He noted that these barriers might be financial or attitudinal.
“Women are reported to be less likely to receive treatment for pain conditions, and furthermore, stigma toward migraine in particular may limit its perceived seriousness,” he said.
‘Equitable access’ needed
Those with full-time employment were significantly more likely to seek a migraine consultation than were those who were not employed full time (46% vs. 42%; P < .001). Patients who sought care were more likely to have health insurance (87% vs. 78%; P < .001).
Having health insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), having previously received a migraine diagnosis (OR, 2.71), and degree of disability (severe vs. none: OR, 2.76; moderate vs. none: OR, 2.04) were associated with increased likelihood of seeking a migraine consultation among those who initially hesitated. Other factors included being male (OR, 1.49), having nausea (OR, 1.15), or being employed full time (OR, 1.24).
“Taken together, our findings suggest consultation rates may be limited by financial barriers and pervasive attitudes that migraine is either not serious or is untreatable,” said Dr. Shapiro. Consistent with this hypothesis is the finding that individuals with migraine who had received an appropriate diagnosis and were therefore better informed about the condition were more likely to continue to seek care for it, he noted.
Because most outpatient medical encounters for migraine are with primary care practitioners, it may make sense to ensure that such clinicians are “well trained in diagnosing and treating common presentations of migraine,” Dr. Shapiro said. It is equally important to ensure “equitable access to health insurance to pay for these consultations,” he added.
‘Take migraine more seriously’
Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was well designed.
Potential weaknesses include the fact that patients were required only to have one migraine attack per year and that not all were diagnosed by a headache specialist using ICHD-3 criteria.
Still, “online, validated, patient-reported data is quite acceptable,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research.
He noted that there is a clear message from the findings for all physicians who see patients with headache disorders: “You will increase the chance of patients consulting and continuing to consult when you make an accurate migraine diagnosis, take migraine more seriously, and understand the stigmas attached to it – and when there are reduced institutional barriers and costs of health care.”
The findings suggest that neurologists should strive to provide patients with ongoing care and medication, he added. In addition, there is a need for further education about the stigma associated with migraine and about how others view this disabling disease, Dr. Rapoport concluded.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Rapoport has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows. A survey of nearly 18,000 participants with migraine showed that 46% were reluctant to consult a physician about their condition. Among those who hesitated, 58% ultimately consulted a physician, but 42% did not.
Common reasons for failure to seek treatment included believing that migraine was not severe enough to warrant a consultation, worries about cost and health insurance, and concern that the health care professional would not take the disorder seriously.
This is the first study to query patients with migraine regarding whether and why they have hesitated to seek care, said coinvestigator Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic sciences and director of the division of headache medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Previous studies have noted differences in care seeking by demographic or other distinguishing characteristics but have not asked people with migraine whether they actually intended to seek or not seek such care,” he said.
Dr. Shapiro presented the findings at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Delays prevent diagnosis and care
For patients with migraine, hesitating to consult a physician causes delays in, and sometimes prevents, receiving a diagnosis and appropriate care.
To assess the proportion of patients who hesitate to seek a consultation for migraine care, as well as reasons for doing so, the investigators examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study. OVERCOME incorporated a prospective web-based survey that was administered to a representative sample of 41,925 individuals in the United States.
Eligible participants who completed the study’s baseline assessment had had at least one migraine attack in the previous year and either met criteria for migraine on the basis of a validated diagnostic screen or provided a self-report of a migraine diagnosis by a health care practitioner. In all, 39,494 participants reported whether they had hesitated to seek a consultation from a physician for migraine care. Of these, 17,951 were included in the analysis.
Among the 46% who hesitated to seek care, 58% ultimately sought migraine care, and 42% did not.
The investigators also examined sociodemographic characteristics and migraine-related data, including the number of monthly headache days and information regarding nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.
Patient-reported outcomes included days with migraine-related disability during the past 3 months, treatment optimization, and the degree to which migraine limited regular activities. Investigators also examined participants’ health care use in the previous 12 months and reasons for hesitating to seek migraine care.
Reasons for hesitancy
A total of 17,920 participants provided reasons for hesitating to seek a migraine consultation. These included a desire to take care of migraine attacks on one’s own (45%), the belief that migraine would not be taken seriously (35%), the belief that the migraine attacks were not serious or painful enough (29%), inability to afford or unwillingness to spend money on care (29%), lack of or inadequate health insurance (21%), and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (19%).
Reasons for hesitation differed between participants who ultimately sought a consultation with a physician and those who did not. Those who did not receive a consultation (n = 7,495) were more likely to want to take care of the migraine attacks on their own (48% vs. 43%) and to believe the attacks were not serious or painful enough (36% vs. 25%).
Participants who hesitated but later sought a consultation were more likely to report concerns that migraine would not be taken seriously (38% vs. 31%) and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (22% vs. 15%).
Among those who did not seek a consultation versus those who did, a significantly higher proportion were women (76% vs. 73%; P < .001).
“This is an interesting finding, since prior studies have indicated that, overall, women with migraine are more likely to have consulted a doctor for it – and also more likely to have been diagnosed with it,” Dr. Shapiro said.
On the other hand, women were 30% more likely to visit emergency departments or urgent care clinics for migraine care than men, he noted.
“These findings suggest some women may be experiencing particular barriers to receiving successful consultation care and that they may persistently hesitate to seek it,” said Dr. Shapiro. He noted that these barriers might be financial or attitudinal.
“Women are reported to be less likely to receive treatment for pain conditions, and furthermore, stigma toward migraine in particular may limit its perceived seriousness,” he said.
‘Equitable access’ needed
Those with full-time employment were significantly more likely to seek a migraine consultation than were those who were not employed full time (46% vs. 42%; P < .001). Patients who sought care were more likely to have health insurance (87% vs. 78%; P < .001).
Having health insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), having previously received a migraine diagnosis (OR, 2.71), and degree of disability (severe vs. none: OR, 2.76; moderate vs. none: OR, 2.04) were associated with increased likelihood of seeking a migraine consultation among those who initially hesitated. Other factors included being male (OR, 1.49), having nausea (OR, 1.15), or being employed full time (OR, 1.24).
“Taken together, our findings suggest consultation rates may be limited by financial barriers and pervasive attitudes that migraine is either not serious or is untreatable,” said Dr. Shapiro. Consistent with this hypothesis is the finding that individuals with migraine who had received an appropriate diagnosis and were therefore better informed about the condition were more likely to continue to seek care for it, he noted.
Because most outpatient medical encounters for migraine are with primary care practitioners, it may make sense to ensure that such clinicians are “well trained in diagnosing and treating common presentations of migraine,” Dr. Shapiro said. It is equally important to ensure “equitable access to health insurance to pay for these consultations,” he added.
‘Take migraine more seriously’
Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was well designed.
Potential weaknesses include the fact that patients were required only to have one migraine attack per year and that not all were diagnosed by a headache specialist using ICHD-3 criteria.
Still, “online, validated, patient-reported data is quite acceptable,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research.
He noted that there is a clear message from the findings for all physicians who see patients with headache disorders: “You will increase the chance of patients consulting and continuing to consult when you make an accurate migraine diagnosis, take migraine more seriously, and understand the stigmas attached to it – and when there are reduced institutional barriers and costs of health care.”
The findings suggest that neurologists should strive to provide patients with ongoing care and medication, he added. In addition, there is a need for further education about the stigma associated with migraine and about how others view this disabling disease, Dr. Rapoport concluded.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Rapoport has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows. A survey of nearly 18,000 participants with migraine showed that 46% were reluctant to consult a physician about their condition. Among those who hesitated, 58% ultimately consulted a physician, but 42% did not.
Common reasons for failure to seek treatment included believing that migraine was not severe enough to warrant a consultation, worries about cost and health insurance, and concern that the health care professional would not take the disorder seriously.
This is the first study to query patients with migraine regarding whether and why they have hesitated to seek care, said coinvestigator Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic sciences and director of the division of headache medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Previous studies have noted differences in care seeking by demographic or other distinguishing characteristics but have not asked people with migraine whether they actually intended to seek or not seek such care,” he said.
Dr. Shapiro presented the findings at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Delays prevent diagnosis and care
For patients with migraine, hesitating to consult a physician causes delays in, and sometimes prevents, receiving a diagnosis and appropriate care.
To assess the proportion of patients who hesitate to seek a consultation for migraine care, as well as reasons for doing so, the investigators examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study. OVERCOME incorporated a prospective web-based survey that was administered to a representative sample of 41,925 individuals in the United States.
Eligible participants who completed the study’s baseline assessment had had at least one migraine attack in the previous year and either met criteria for migraine on the basis of a validated diagnostic screen or provided a self-report of a migraine diagnosis by a health care practitioner. In all, 39,494 participants reported whether they had hesitated to seek a consultation from a physician for migraine care. Of these, 17,951 were included in the analysis.
Among the 46% who hesitated to seek care, 58% ultimately sought migraine care, and 42% did not.
The investigators also examined sociodemographic characteristics and migraine-related data, including the number of monthly headache days and information regarding nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.
Patient-reported outcomes included days with migraine-related disability during the past 3 months, treatment optimization, and the degree to which migraine limited regular activities. Investigators also examined participants’ health care use in the previous 12 months and reasons for hesitating to seek migraine care.
Reasons for hesitancy
A total of 17,920 participants provided reasons for hesitating to seek a migraine consultation. These included a desire to take care of migraine attacks on one’s own (45%), the belief that migraine would not be taken seriously (35%), the belief that the migraine attacks were not serious or painful enough (29%), inability to afford or unwillingness to spend money on care (29%), lack of or inadequate health insurance (21%), and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (19%).
Reasons for hesitation differed between participants who ultimately sought a consultation with a physician and those who did not. Those who did not receive a consultation (n = 7,495) were more likely to want to take care of the migraine attacks on their own (48% vs. 43%) and to believe the attacks were not serious or painful enough (36% vs. 25%).
Participants who hesitated but later sought a consultation were more likely to report concerns that migraine would not be taken seriously (38% vs. 31%) and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (22% vs. 15%).
Among those who did not seek a consultation versus those who did, a significantly higher proportion were women (76% vs. 73%; P < .001).
“This is an interesting finding, since prior studies have indicated that, overall, women with migraine are more likely to have consulted a doctor for it – and also more likely to have been diagnosed with it,” Dr. Shapiro said.
On the other hand, women were 30% more likely to visit emergency departments or urgent care clinics for migraine care than men, he noted.
“These findings suggest some women may be experiencing particular barriers to receiving successful consultation care and that they may persistently hesitate to seek it,” said Dr. Shapiro. He noted that these barriers might be financial or attitudinal.
“Women are reported to be less likely to receive treatment for pain conditions, and furthermore, stigma toward migraine in particular may limit its perceived seriousness,” he said.
‘Equitable access’ needed
Those with full-time employment were significantly more likely to seek a migraine consultation than were those who were not employed full time (46% vs. 42%; P < .001). Patients who sought care were more likely to have health insurance (87% vs. 78%; P < .001).
Having health insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), having previously received a migraine diagnosis (OR, 2.71), and degree of disability (severe vs. none: OR, 2.76; moderate vs. none: OR, 2.04) were associated with increased likelihood of seeking a migraine consultation among those who initially hesitated. Other factors included being male (OR, 1.49), having nausea (OR, 1.15), or being employed full time (OR, 1.24).
“Taken together, our findings suggest consultation rates may be limited by financial barriers and pervasive attitudes that migraine is either not serious or is untreatable,” said Dr. Shapiro. Consistent with this hypothesis is the finding that individuals with migraine who had received an appropriate diagnosis and were therefore better informed about the condition were more likely to continue to seek care for it, he noted.
Because most outpatient medical encounters for migraine are with primary care practitioners, it may make sense to ensure that such clinicians are “well trained in diagnosing and treating common presentations of migraine,” Dr. Shapiro said. It is equally important to ensure “equitable access to health insurance to pay for these consultations,” he added.
‘Take migraine more seriously’
Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was well designed.
Potential weaknesses include the fact that patients were required only to have one migraine attack per year and that not all were diagnosed by a headache specialist using ICHD-3 criteria.
Still, “online, validated, patient-reported data is quite acceptable,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research.
He noted that there is a clear message from the findings for all physicians who see patients with headache disorders: “You will increase the chance of patients consulting and continuing to consult when you make an accurate migraine diagnosis, take migraine more seriously, and understand the stigmas attached to it – and when there are reduced institutional barriers and costs of health care.”
The findings suggest that neurologists should strive to provide patients with ongoing care and medication, he added. In addition, there is a need for further education about the stigma associated with migraine and about how others view this disabling disease, Dr. Rapoport concluded.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Rapoport has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2021
Telemedicine for headache visits had high patient satisfaction
according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Most patients who used telemedicine said they would like to continue using it after the pandemic, though the study also revealed barriers to care for a small percentage of respondents.
“Telemedicine minimizes the physical and geographic barriers to health care, preserves personal protective equipment, and prevents the spread of COVID-19 by allowing encounters to happen in a socially distanced way,” said Chia-Chun Chiang, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Telemedicine provides patients with opportunities to gain better control of their headache disorders while not having to commit to the time to travel and risk of exposure to COVID-19.” If insurance coverage for virtual care were rolled back, “patients and multiple levels of health care providers would be significantly affected,” she said.
The research relied on findings from a 15-question survey distributed by the nonprofit American Migraine Foundation through email and social media to more than 100,000 people. Among the 1,172 patients who responded to the survey, 1,098 had complete responses, and 86.6% were female.
The vast majority of these patients (93.8%) had had a previous diagnosis of a headache. Just over half (57.5%) said they used telemedicine during the study period, with most of those visits (85.5%) being follow-up care and 14.5% involving a new patient visit.
Among those who did not use telemedicine, most (56.1%) said they didn’t need a visit. However, a quarter of these respondents (25.2%) said they didn’t know telemedicine was an option, and 12.9% said they would have preferred telemedicine but it wasn’t offered by their doctors. A smaller proportion (3.5%) said they wanted to use virtual care but that their insurance did not cover it, and nearly as many (2.2%) said they wanted telemedicine but didn’t have the technology needed to use it.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted that reliable Internet service has contributed to disparities in access in many ways, including health care via telemedicine,” Dr. Chiang said. “Those who are not able to afford Internet, lack proficiency in the use of technology, or have cognitive impairment might not be able to utilize telemedicine.”
Among those who did receive telemedicine care for headache, about a third (34.4%) received care from a general neurologist while 43.7% saw a headache specialist and nearly a third (30.7%) saw a primary care provider. The remaining visits included 11.3% who saw headache nurse practitioners and 3.2% who saw headache nurses.
Most patients did not have a new or changed diagnosis at their visit; only 7.4% received a new headache diagnosis during their telemedicine appointment. Though 43.7% had no change to their therapy, a little more than half of patients (52.4%) received a new treatment, a finding that caught the interest of Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and past president of the International Headache Society.
“The techniques used [in virtual visits] were good enough for the caregiver to make critical decisions about how the patient was doing and what new treatment might be better for them,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research. “I believe that most headache specialists will gradually resume in office visits,” he said, but “this study shows it would be okay for some or most of the revisits to continue to be done virtually.”
The vast majority of patients rated their care as “very good” (62.1%) or “good” (20.7%). Less satisfied responses included 10.5% who felt their experience was “fair,” 3.6% who said it was “poor,” and 3.1% who gave other responses.
These results fit with the experience of Dr. Rapoport and of Paul B. Rizzoli, MD, associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and clinical director of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, both in Boston.
“Telemedicine worked better than we anticipated,” said Dr. Rizzoli when asked for comment. “I was especially surprised how comfortable I became with its use for many, but not all, new patients. While I don’t expect it to replace in-person visits, I do expect that it will and should be a permanent part of our care going forward, especially for follow-up visits.”
The findings supported that expectation as well: An overwhelming majority of those who responded to the survey (89.8%) also said they would like to keep receiving telemedicine care for their headache care and treatment. This percentage was split evenly between those who said they would like to always receive care virtually and those who would only want to use it for some appointments. A smaller proportion said they did not want to keep using virtual care (7.1%) or weren’t sure (3.1%).
“Telemedicine has become an essential tool for patients and a wide variety of clinicians,” Dr. Chiang reported during her presentation. “Telemedicine facilitated headache care for many patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in high patient satisfaction rates and a desire to continue to utilize telemedicine for future headache care for those who responded to the online survey.”
Dr. Rapoport noted that a particular benefit of telemedicine in his practice is avoiding transportation issues.
“In Santa Monica and Los Angeles, my patients coming from 10 or more miles away usually have to contend with difficult traffic, which created stress and often made them late and upset the office schedule,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I found that virtual visits were almost always shorter, on time, and were as effective for the patient as an in-person visit.”
Dr. Chiang drew attention, however, to the barriers to care found in the study, including not having or knowing of telemedicine as an option, and not having access to the technology or insurance coverage needed to take advantage of it. She listed three ways to address those challenges and increase health care accessibility to patients:
- Expand insurance coverage to reimburse telemedicine even after the pandemic.
- Widely promote and broadcast the use of virtual care.
- Make Internet access a priority as a necessity in society and expand access.
Dr. Rizzoli also noted some ways to improve telemedicine. “We could easily develop improved means of delivering vital signs and other bio-information over telemedicine to improve decision-making,” he said. “A difficult task going forward will be to fix legal questions associated with virtual visits across state lines which, especially in the small New England states, come up frequently and are currently illegal.”
Dr. Rapoport noted ways that patients can facilitate effective telemedicine visits. “Doctors should insist that patients keep careful records of their headaches, triggers, medicines, etc., either on paper or preferably via an app on their smartphones, which is usually always accessible,” Dr. Rapoport said. “With good data and a good electronic connection, the visit should go well.”
Among the study’s limitations were a comparatively small response rate (1.11% of those invited to participate) and ascertainment bias.
“The take-home message from the experience is that this turns out to be an effective, efficient and accepted means of delivering care that should be developed further,” Dr. Rizzoli said.
No external funding was noted. Dr. Chiang and Dr. Rizzoli had no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport has advised AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Theranica, Xoc and Zosano, and is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Lundbeck and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.
according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Most patients who used telemedicine said they would like to continue using it after the pandemic, though the study also revealed barriers to care for a small percentage of respondents.
“Telemedicine minimizes the physical and geographic barriers to health care, preserves personal protective equipment, and prevents the spread of COVID-19 by allowing encounters to happen in a socially distanced way,” said Chia-Chun Chiang, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Telemedicine provides patients with opportunities to gain better control of their headache disorders while not having to commit to the time to travel and risk of exposure to COVID-19.” If insurance coverage for virtual care were rolled back, “patients and multiple levels of health care providers would be significantly affected,” she said.
The research relied on findings from a 15-question survey distributed by the nonprofit American Migraine Foundation through email and social media to more than 100,000 people. Among the 1,172 patients who responded to the survey, 1,098 had complete responses, and 86.6% were female.
The vast majority of these patients (93.8%) had had a previous diagnosis of a headache. Just over half (57.5%) said they used telemedicine during the study period, with most of those visits (85.5%) being follow-up care and 14.5% involving a new patient visit.
Among those who did not use telemedicine, most (56.1%) said they didn’t need a visit. However, a quarter of these respondents (25.2%) said they didn’t know telemedicine was an option, and 12.9% said they would have preferred telemedicine but it wasn’t offered by their doctors. A smaller proportion (3.5%) said they wanted to use virtual care but that their insurance did not cover it, and nearly as many (2.2%) said they wanted telemedicine but didn’t have the technology needed to use it.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted that reliable Internet service has contributed to disparities in access in many ways, including health care via telemedicine,” Dr. Chiang said. “Those who are not able to afford Internet, lack proficiency in the use of technology, or have cognitive impairment might not be able to utilize telemedicine.”
Among those who did receive telemedicine care for headache, about a third (34.4%) received care from a general neurologist while 43.7% saw a headache specialist and nearly a third (30.7%) saw a primary care provider. The remaining visits included 11.3% who saw headache nurse practitioners and 3.2% who saw headache nurses.
Most patients did not have a new or changed diagnosis at their visit; only 7.4% received a new headache diagnosis during their telemedicine appointment. Though 43.7% had no change to their therapy, a little more than half of patients (52.4%) received a new treatment, a finding that caught the interest of Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and past president of the International Headache Society.
“The techniques used [in virtual visits] were good enough for the caregiver to make critical decisions about how the patient was doing and what new treatment might be better for them,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research. “I believe that most headache specialists will gradually resume in office visits,” he said, but “this study shows it would be okay for some or most of the revisits to continue to be done virtually.”
The vast majority of patients rated their care as “very good” (62.1%) or “good” (20.7%). Less satisfied responses included 10.5% who felt their experience was “fair,” 3.6% who said it was “poor,” and 3.1% who gave other responses.
These results fit with the experience of Dr. Rapoport and of Paul B. Rizzoli, MD, associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and clinical director of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, both in Boston.
“Telemedicine worked better than we anticipated,” said Dr. Rizzoli when asked for comment. “I was especially surprised how comfortable I became with its use for many, but not all, new patients. While I don’t expect it to replace in-person visits, I do expect that it will and should be a permanent part of our care going forward, especially for follow-up visits.”
The findings supported that expectation as well: An overwhelming majority of those who responded to the survey (89.8%) also said they would like to keep receiving telemedicine care for their headache care and treatment. This percentage was split evenly between those who said they would like to always receive care virtually and those who would only want to use it for some appointments. A smaller proportion said they did not want to keep using virtual care (7.1%) or weren’t sure (3.1%).
“Telemedicine has become an essential tool for patients and a wide variety of clinicians,” Dr. Chiang reported during her presentation. “Telemedicine facilitated headache care for many patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in high patient satisfaction rates and a desire to continue to utilize telemedicine for future headache care for those who responded to the online survey.”
Dr. Rapoport noted that a particular benefit of telemedicine in his practice is avoiding transportation issues.
“In Santa Monica and Los Angeles, my patients coming from 10 or more miles away usually have to contend with difficult traffic, which created stress and often made them late and upset the office schedule,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I found that virtual visits were almost always shorter, on time, and were as effective for the patient as an in-person visit.”
Dr. Chiang drew attention, however, to the barriers to care found in the study, including not having or knowing of telemedicine as an option, and not having access to the technology or insurance coverage needed to take advantage of it. She listed three ways to address those challenges and increase health care accessibility to patients:
- Expand insurance coverage to reimburse telemedicine even after the pandemic.
- Widely promote and broadcast the use of virtual care.
- Make Internet access a priority as a necessity in society and expand access.
Dr. Rizzoli also noted some ways to improve telemedicine. “We could easily develop improved means of delivering vital signs and other bio-information over telemedicine to improve decision-making,” he said. “A difficult task going forward will be to fix legal questions associated with virtual visits across state lines which, especially in the small New England states, come up frequently and are currently illegal.”
Dr. Rapoport noted ways that patients can facilitate effective telemedicine visits. “Doctors should insist that patients keep careful records of their headaches, triggers, medicines, etc., either on paper or preferably via an app on their smartphones, which is usually always accessible,” Dr. Rapoport said. “With good data and a good electronic connection, the visit should go well.”
Among the study’s limitations were a comparatively small response rate (1.11% of those invited to participate) and ascertainment bias.
“The take-home message from the experience is that this turns out to be an effective, efficient and accepted means of delivering care that should be developed further,” Dr. Rizzoli said.
No external funding was noted. Dr. Chiang and Dr. Rizzoli had no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport has advised AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Theranica, Xoc and Zosano, and is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Lundbeck and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.
according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Most patients who used telemedicine said they would like to continue using it after the pandemic, though the study also revealed barriers to care for a small percentage of respondents.
“Telemedicine minimizes the physical and geographic barriers to health care, preserves personal protective equipment, and prevents the spread of COVID-19 by allowing encounters to happen in a socially distanced way,” said Chia-Chun Chiang, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Telemedicine provides patients with opportunities to gain better control of their headache disorders while not having to commit to the time to travel and risk of exposure to COVID-19.” If insurance coverage for virtual care were rolled back, “patients and multiple levels of health care providers would be significantly affected,” she said.
The research relied on findings from a 15-question survey distributed by the nonprofit American Migraine Foundation through email and social media to more than 100,000 people. Among the 1,172 patients who responded to the survey, 1,098 had complete responses, and 86.6% were female.
The vast majority of these patients (93.8%) had had a previous diagnosis of a headache. Just over half (57.5%) said they used telemedicine during the study period, with most of those visits (85.5%) being follow-up care and 14.5% involving a new patient visit.
Among those who did not use telemedicine, most (56.1%) said they didn’t need a visit. However, a quarter of these respondents (25.2%) said they didn’t know telemedicine was an option, and 12.9% said they would have preferred telemedicine but it wasn’t offered by their doctors. A smaller proportion (3.5%) said they wanted to use virtual care but that their insurance did not cover it, and nearly as many (2.2%) said they wanted telemedicine but didn’t have the technology needed to use it.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted that reliable Internet service has contributed to disparities in access in many ways, including health care via telemedicine,” Dr. Chiang said. “Those who are not able to afford Internet, lack proficiency in the use of technology, or have cognitive impairment might not be able to utilize telemedicine.”
Among those who did receive telemedicine care for headache, about a third (34.4%) received care from a general neurologist while 43.7% saw a headache specialist and nearly a third (30.7%) saw a primary care provider. The remaining visits included 11.3% who saw headache nurse practitioners and 3.2% who saw headache nurses.
Most patients did not have a new or changed diagnosis at their visit; only 7.4% received a new headache diagnosis during their telemedicine appointment. Though 43.7% had no change to their therapy, a little more than half of patients (52.4%) received a new treatment, a finding that caught the interest of Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and past president of the International Headache Society.
“The techniques used [in virtual visits] were good enough for the caregiver to make critical decisions about how the patient was doing and what new treatment might be better for them,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research. “I believe that most headache specialists will gradually resume in office visits,” he said, but “this study shows it would be okay for some or most of the revisits to continue to be done virtually.”
The vast majority of patients rated their care as “very good” (62.1%) or “good” (20.7%). Less satisfied responses included 10.5% who felt their experience was “fair,” 3.6% who said it was “poor,” and 3.1% who gave other responses.
These results fit with the experience of Dr. Rapoport and of Paul B. Rizzoli, MD, associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and clinical director of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, both in Boston.
“Telemedicine worked better than we anticipated,” said Dr. Rizzoli when asked for comment. “I was especially surprised how comfortable I became with its use for many, but not all, new patients. While I don’t expect it to replace in-person visits, I do expect that it will and should be a permanent part of our care going forward, especially for follow-up visits.”
The findings supported that expectation as well: An overwhelming majority of those who responded to the survey (89.8%) also said they would like to keep receiving telemedicine care for their headache care and treatment. This percentage was split evenly between those who said they would like to always receive care virtually and those who would only want to use it for some appointments. A smaller proportion said they did not want to keep using virtual care (7.1%) or weren’t sure (3.1%).
“Telemedicine has become an essential tool for patients and a wide variety of clinicians,” Dr. Chiang reported during her presentation. “Telemedicine facilitated headache care for many patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in high patient satisfaction rates and a desire to continue to utilize telemedicine for future headache care for those who responded to the online survey.”
Dr. Rapoport noted that a particular benefit of telemedicine in his practice is avoiding transportation issues.
“In Santa Monica and Los Angeles, my patients coming from 10 or more miles away usually have to contend with difficult traffic, which created stress and often made them late and upset the office schedule,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I found that virtual visits were almost always shorter, on time, and were as effective for the patient as an in-person visit.”
Dr. Chiang drew attention, however, to the barriers to care found in the study, including not having or knowing of telemedicine as an option, and not having access to the technology or insurance coverage needed to take advantage of it. She listed three ways to address those challenges and increase health care accessibility to patients:
- Expand insurance coverage to reimburse telemedicine even after the pandemic.
- Widely promote and broadcast the use of virtual care.
- Make Internet access a priority as a necessity in society and expand access.
Dr. Rizzoli also noted some ways to improve telemedicine. “We could easily develop improved means of delivering vital signs and other bio-information over telemedicine to improve decision-making,” he said. “A difficult task going forward will be to fix legal questions associated with virtual visits across state lines which, especially in the small New England states, come up frequently and are currently illegal.”
Dr. Rapoport noted ways that patients can facilitate effective telemedicine visits. “Doctors should insist that patients keep careful records of their headaches, triggers, medicines, etc., either on paper or preferably via an app on their smartphones, which is usually always accessible,” Dr. Rapoport said. “With good data and a good electronic connection, the visit should go well.”
Among the study’s limitations were a comparatively small response rate (1.11% of those invited to participate) and ascertainment bias.
“The take-home message from the experience is that this turns out to be an effective, efficient and accepted means of delivering care that should be developed further,” Dr. Rizzoli said.
No external funding was noted. Dr. Chiang and Dr. Rizzoli had no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport has advised AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Theranica, Xoc and Zosano, and is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Lundbeck and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries.
FROM AHS 2021
FDA approves controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm)
In November, the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee voted eight to one against approving the drug because, based on clinical trial results, evidence of efficacy was not strong enough. Two other members said they were uncertain on the issue of efficacy.
In a company release Michel Vounatsos, Biogen’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “this historic moment is the culmination of more than a decade of groundbreaking research in the complex field of Alzheimer’s disease. We believe this first-in-class medicine will transform the treatment of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and spark continuous innovation in the years to come.
Rocky road
The road to approval has been extremely rocky for aducanumab, an anti-amyloid-beta human monoclonal antibody, previously known as BIIB037.
As reported by this news organization, two phase 3 trials evaluating the drug were initially scrapped in March 2019 because of interim futility analysis. At the time, Biogen released a statement saying that aducanumab was unlikely to meet primary endpoints in the ENGAGE and EMERGE randomized controlled trials.
However, in an about-face 7 months later, Biogen and Eisai announced that a new analysis showed the drug met its primary endpoint of reduction in clinical decline, including cognition and function, in the EMERGE trial.
Although ENGAGE still didn’t meet its primary endpoint, data from its new analysis “supported” the EMERGE findings, the drug companies said at the time.
However, 1 year later, a majority of the members of the FDA’s advisory panel were against the drug’s approval. Details of that decision were published online March 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
As reported by this news organization, a Viewpoint written by three of the committee members notes that results from the drug’s only large positive clinical trial fell short.
“There is no persuasive evidence to support approval of aducanumab at this time,” they write.
Groups such as Public Citizen’s Health Research Group not only agree with the Viewpoint’s authors, they also criticized the FDA for its collaboration with the drug’s manufacturers on briefing documents and more.
On April 1, Health Research Group members sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting the temporary suspension of the FDA’s neuroscience chief, Bill Dunn, MD, because of his role in supervising the collaboration.
Alzheimer association weighs in
The Alzheimer’s Association has been a proponent of the drug throughout its development.
Ahead of today’s news, the organization noted in a statement that a decision to approve “would be historic” because it would make aducanumab “the first drug to slow Alzheimer’s disease” and would mark the beginning of a new future for AD treatments.
“The Alzheimer’s Association urgently supports FDA approval of the treatment based on clinical trial results that showed a 22% reduction in cognitive and function decline — something that could make a meaningful difference” for patients with AD, it said.
Kristen Clifford, chief program officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview at the time that approval would be considered a “victory” for patients with AD and for the field overall.
“For individuals who would potentially be eligible for the treatment, this drug could mean more quality time. Slowing decline, particularly in early diagnosis, could add weeks or months or maybe even years of active life,” Clifford said.
“If approved, this would really be a landmark moment. And it could provide hope for those living with Alzheimer’s and their families,” she added.
Clifford noted that approval of this type of drug would also underscore the importance of early detection for AD. “This treatment would encourage earlier diagnosis of the disease,” she said.
In a new statement released just after approval for aducanumab was announced, the organization said that today’s news is a win-win for all patients with AD and their families.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In November, the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee voted eight to one against approving the drug because, based on clinical trial results, evidence of efficacy was not strong enough. Two other members said they were uncertain on the issue of efficacy.
In a company release Michel Vounatsos, Biogen’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “this historic moment is the culmination of more than a decade of groundbreaking research in the complex field of Alzheimer’s disease. We believe this first-in-class medicine will transform the treatment of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and spark continuous innovation in the years to come.
Rocky road
The road to approval has been extremely rocky for aducanumab, an anti-amyloid-beta human monoclonal antibody, previously known as BIIB037.
As reported by this news organization, two phase 3 trials evaluating the drug were initially scrapped in March 2019 because of interim futility analysis. At the time, Biogen released a statement saying that aducanumab was unlikely to meet primary endpoints in the ENGAGE and EMERGE randomized controlled trials.
However, in an about-face 7 months later, Biogen and Eisai announced that a new analysis showed the drug met its primary endpoint of reduction in clinical decline, including cognition and function, in the EMERGE trial.
Although ENGAGE still didn’t meet its primary endpoint, data from its new analysis “supported” the EMERGE findings, the drug companies said at the time.
However, 1 year later, a majority of the members of the FDA’s advisory panel were against the drug’s approval. Details of that decision were published online March 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
As reported by this news organization, a Viewpoint written by three of the committee members notes that results from the drug’s only large positive clinical trial fell short.
“There is no persuasive evidence to support approval of aducanumab at this time,” they write.
Groups such as Public Citizen’s Health Research Group not only agree with the Viewpoint’s authors, they also criticized the FDA for its collaboration with the drug’s manufacturers on briefing documents and more.
On April 1, Health Research Group members sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting the temporary suspension of the FDA’s neuroscience chief, Bill Dunn, MD, because of his role in supervising the collaboration.
Alzheimer association weighs in
The Alzheimer’s Association has been a proponent of the drug throughout its development.
Ahead of today’s news, the organization noted in a statement that a decision to approve “would be historic” because it would make aducanumab “the first drug to slow Alzheimer’s disease” and would mark the beginning of a new future for AD treatments.
“The Alzheimer’s Association urgently supports FDA approval of the treatment based on clinical trial results that showed a 22% reduction in cognitive and function decline — something that could make a meaningful difference” for patients with AD, it said.
Kristen Clifford, chief program officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview at the time that approval would be considered a “victory” for patients with AD and for the field overall.
“For individuals who would potentially be eligible for the treatment, this drug could mean more quality time. Slowing decline, particularly in early diagnosis, could add weeks or months or maybe even years of active life,” Clifford said.
“If approved, this would really be a landmark moment. And it could provide hope for those living with Alzheimer’s and their families,” she added.
Clifford noted that approval of this type of drug would also underscore the importance of early detection for AD. “This treatment would encourage earlier diagnosis of the disease,” she said.
In a new statement released just after approval for aducanumab was announced, the organization said that today’s news is a win-win for all patients with AD and their families.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In November, the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee voted eight to one against approving the drug because, based on clinical trial results, evidence of efficacy was not strong enough. Two other members said they were uncertain on the issue of efficacy.
In a company release Michel Vounatsos, Biogen’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “this historic moment is the culmination of more than a decade of groundbreaking research in the complex field of Alzheimer’s disease. We believe this first-in-class medicine will transform the treatment of people living with Alzheimer’s disease and spark continuous innovation in the years to come.
Rocky road
The road to approval has been extremely rocky for aducanumab, an anti-amyloid-beta human monoclonal antibody, previously known as BIIB037.
As reported by this news organization, two phase 3 trials evaluating the drug were initially scrapped in March 2019 because of interim futility analysis. At the time, Biogen released a statement saying that aducanumab was unlikely to meet primary endpoints in the ENGAGE and EMERGE randomized controlled trials.
However, in an about-face 7 months later, Biogen and Eisai announced that a new analysis showed the drug met its primary endpoint of reduction in clinical decline, including cognition and function, in the EMERGE trial.
Although ENGAGE still didn’t meet its primary endpoint, data from its new analysis “supported” the EMERGE findings, the drug companies said at the time.
However, 1 year later, a majority of the members of the FDA’s advisory panel were against the drug’s approval. Details of that decision were published online March 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
As reported by this news organization, a Viewpoint written by three of the committee members notes that results from the drug’s only large positive clinical trial fell short.
“There is no persuasive evidence to support approval of aducanumab at this time,” they write.
Groups such as Public Citizen’s Health Research Group not only agree with the Viewpoint’s authors, they also criticized the FDA for its collaboration with the drug’s manufacturers on briefing documents and more.
On April 1, Health Research Group members sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting the temporary suspension of the FDA’s neuroscience chief, Bill Dunn, MD, because of his role in supervising the collaboration.
Alzheimer association weighs in
The Alzheimer’s Association has been a proponent of the drug throughout its development.
Ahead of today’s news, the organization noted in a statement that a decision to approve “would be historic” because it would make aducanumab “the first drug to slow Alzheimer’s disease” and would mark the beginning of a new future for AD treatments.
“The Alzheimer’s Association urgently supports FDA approval of the treatment based on clinical trial results that showed a 22% reduction in cognitive and function decline — something that could make a meaningful difference” for patients with AD, it said.
Kristen Clifford, chief program officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an interview at the time that approval would be considered a “victory” for patients with AD and for the field overall.
“For individuals who would potentially be eligible for the treatment, this drug could mean more quality time. Slowing decline, particularly in early diagnosis, could add weeks or months or maybe even years of active life,” Clifford said.
“If approved, this would really be a landmark moment. And it could provide hope for those living with Alzheimer’s and their families,” she added.
Clifford noted that approval of this type of drug would also underscore the importance of early detection for AD. “This treatment would encourage earlier diagnosis of the disease,” she said.
In a new statement released just after approval for aducanumab was announced, the organization said that today’s news is a win-win for all patients with AD and their families.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Fremanezumab fails posttraumatic headache test
Anti-CGRP therapy had been predicted to be effective, given its history of improving other forms of headache, and preclinical studies had suggested that CGRP plays a role in late pain sensitization that can occur after mild brain injuries.
“There was a decrease in migraine headache days of moderate or severe intensity in both groups. But the difference between fremanezumab and placebo treatment was not statistically significant, either looking at that on a monthly basis or over the total 12 weeks of treatment,” Egilius L.H. Spierings, MD, PhD, said during his presentation of the results at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Dr. Spierings is medical director of the Boston Headache Institute.
Disappointing findings
“That’s sad. It’s just dreadful news,” Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. Dr. Tepper was not involved in the study. The results suggest that CGRP mechanisms may not be relevant to persistent posttraumatic headache, but it could still play a role at onset. “We have to rethink this. Either it’s that chronic, persistent posttraumatic headache does not have a CGRP biology, or it’s that you have to get to them earlier [in the disease process],” he said.
The negative results were surprising, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and former president of the International Headache Society. He noted that the study was small, and the researchers were unable to conduct subgroup analyses. “Posttraumatic headaches are usually broken down into those that phenotypically look like migraine, or phenotypically look like tension-type headache. It would have been nice to know if most of them had what clinically appears to be tension-type headache, and maybe that’s why they didn’t respond. Or did most of them have a migraine phenotype, and then it would be a little more surprising that they didn’t respond,” Dr. Rapoport said in an interview.
As a result, he believes that further studies might show that fremanezumab is an effective treatment for posttraumatic headache. “I would not give up on it. I expect that a larger study with better power, and a better idea of exactly what was wrong with the patients, might end up being a positive study,” he said.
Although most posttraumatic headaches resolve within weeks or months, some can linger or become chronic for years. Pain medication is often prescribed but should not be, according to Dr. Rapoport, because it can lead to medication overuse headache that worsens the problem. “So we badly need a good temporary preventive treatment. The thought of giving our newest, most effective preventive medications, with few adverse events, is a good one. It just didn’t seem to work in this fairly small and underpowered study,” he said.
The phase 2 trial
The trial included 87 patients with new-onset or significant worsening of headache following a minor traumatic brain injury or concussion, who were randomized to treatment with 675 mg subcutaneous fremanezumab once monthly, or placebo. The average elapsed time since the trauma was 8.1 years in the placebo group and 9.3 years in the fremanezumab arm. The average number of moderate to severe headache days was 18.5 days in the placebo group and 18.4 days in the fremanezumab group. The initial 12-week randomized period was followed by an open-label period in which patients on placebo received the study drug.
After 12 weeks of treatment, there was a greater decrease in moderate to severe headache days in the placebo arm, though the difference was not statistically significant (–5.1 versus –3.6 days; P = .1876). At 1 month, the two groups were similar (–4 days placebo versus –3.6 days fremanezumab), but there was a greater reduction in the placebo arm at 2 months (–6.7 versus –3.7 days) and 3 months (–7.21 versus –5.2 days).
A secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced a 50% or greater reduction in moderate to severe headache days, and there was no significant difference between placebo and fremanezumab after 12 weeks (26% versus 21%) or at month 1 (26% versus 19%), month 2 (33% versus 19%), or month 3 (28% versus 33%).
Adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (81% versus 72%), and all were mild or moderate, with the exception of one that occurred in the placebo group. There were no deaths, and no meaningful changes in laboratory or clinical examinations.
Dr. Spierings is on the advisory board for Satsuma, is a speaker for Teva, Amgen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Biohaven, and AbbVie, and has been a clinical trial principal investigator for Teva, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Biohaven, and Satsuma. Dr. Tepper has been a consultant for Teva. Dr. Rapoport has consulted for Teva and has been a speaker for Teva.
Anti-CGRP therapy had been predicted to be effective, given its history of improving other forms of headache, and preclinical studies had suggested that CGRP plays a role in late pain sensitization that can occur after mild brain injuries.
“There was a decrease in migraine headache days of moderate or severe intensity in both groups. But the difference between fremanezumab and placebo treatment was not statistically significant, either looking at that on a monthly basis or over the total 12 weeks of treatment,” Egilius L.H. Spierings, MD, PhD, said during his presentation of the results at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Dr. Spierings is medical director of the Boston Headache Institute.
Disappointing findings
“That’s sad. It’s just dreadful news,” Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. Dr. Tepper was not involved in the study. The results suggest that CGRP mechanisms may not be relevant to persistent posttraumatic headache, but it could still play a role at onset. “We have to rethink this. Either it’s that chronic, persistent posttraumatic headache does not have a CGRP biology, or it’s that you have to get to them earlier [in the disease process],” he said.
The negative results were surprising, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and former president of the International Headache Society. He noted that the study was small, and the researchers were unable to conduct subgroup analyses. “Posttraumatic headaches are usually broken down into those that phenotypically look like migraine, or phenotypically look like tension-type headache. It would have been nice to know if most of them had what clinically appears to be tension-type headache, and maybe that’s why they didn’t respond. Or did most of them have a migraine phenotype, and then it would be a little more surprising that they didn’t respond,” Dr. Rapoport said in an interview.
As a result, he believes that further studies might show that fremanezumab is an effective treatment for posttraumatic headache. “I would not give up on it. I expect that a larger study with better power, and a better idea of exactly what was wrong with the patients, might end up being a positive study,” he said.
Although most posttraumatic headaches resolve within weeks or months, some can linger or become chronic for years. Pain medication is often prescribed but should not be, according to Dr. Rapoport, because it can lead to medication overuse headache that worsens the problem. “So we badly need a good temporary preventive treatment. The thought of giving our newest, most effective preventive medications, with few adverse events, is a good one. It just didn’t seem to work in this fairly small and underpowered study,” he said.
The phase 2 trial
The trial included 87 patients with new-onset or significant worsening of headache following a minor traumatic brain injury or concussion, who were randomized to treatment with 675 mg subcutaneous fremanezumab once monthly, or placebo. The average elapsed time since the trauma was 8.1 years in the placebo group and 9.3 years in the fremanezumab arm. The average number of moderate to severe headache days was 18.5 days in the placebo group and 18.4 days in the fremanezumab group. The initial 12-week randomized period was followed by an open-label period in which patients on placebo received the study drug.
After 12 weeks of treatment, there was a greater decrease in moderate to severe headache days in the placebo arm, though the difference was not statistically significant (–5.1 versus –3.6 days; P = .1876). At 1 month, the two groups were similar (–4 days placebo versus –3.6 days fremanezumab), but there was a greater reduction in the placebo arm at 2 months (–6.7 versus –3.7 days) and 3 months (–7.21 versus –5.2 days).
A secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced a 50% or greater reduction in moderate to severe headache days, and there was no significant difference between placebo and fremanezumab after 12 weeks (26% versus 21%) or at month 1 (26% versus 19%), month 2 (33% versus 19%), or month 3 (28% versus 33%).
Adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (81% versus 72%), and all were mild or moderate, with the exception of one that occurred in the placebo group. There were no deaths, and no meaningful changes in laboratory or clinical examinations.
Dr. Spierings is on the advisory board for Satsuma, is a speaker for Teva, Amgen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Biohaven, and AbbVie, and has been a clinical trial principal investigator for Teva, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Biohaven, and Satsuma. Dr. Tepper has been a consultant for Teva. Dr. Rapoport has consulted for Teva and has been a speaker for Teva.
Anti-CGRP therapy had been predicted to be effective, given its history of improving other forms of headache, and preclinical studies had suggested that CGRP plays a role in late pain sensitization that can occur after mild brain injuries.
“There was a decrease in migraine headache days of moderate or severe intensity in both groups. But the difference between fremanezumab and placebo treatment was not statistically significant, either looking at that on a monthly basis or over the total 12 weeks of treatment,” Egilius L.H. Spierings, MD, PhD, said during his presentation of the results at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. Dr. Spierings is medical director of the Boston Headache Institute.
Disappointing findings
“That’s sad. It’s just dreadful news,” Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. Dr. Tepper was not involved in the study. The results suggest that CGRP mechanisms may not be relevant to persistent posttraumatic headache, but it could still play a role at onset. “We have to rethink this. Either it’s that chronic, persistent posttraumatic headache does not have a CGRP biology, or it’s that you have to get to them earlier [in the disease process],” he said.
The negative results were surprising, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and former president of the International Headache Society. He noted that the study was small, and the researchers were unable to conduct subgroup analyses. “Posttraumatic headaches are usually broken down into those that phenotypically look like migraine, or phenotypically look like tension-type headache. It would have been nice to know if most of them had what clinically appears to be tension-type headache, and maybe that’s why they didn’t respond. Or did most of them have a migraine phenotype, and then it would be a little more surprising that they didn’t respond,” Dr. Rapoport said in an interview.
As a result, he believes that further studies might show that fremanezumab is an effective treatment for posttraumatic headache. “I would not give up on it. I expect that a larger study with better power, and a better idea of exactly what was wrong with the patients, might end up being a positive study,” he said.
Although most posttraumatic headaches resolve within weeks or months, some can linger or become chronic for years. Pain medication is often prescribed but should not be, according to Dr. Rapoport, because it can lead to medication overuse headache that worsens the problem. “So we badly need a good temporary preventive treatment. The thought of giving our newest, most effective preventive medications, with few adverse events, is a good one. It just didn’t seem to work in this fairly small and underpowered study,” he said.
The phase 2 trial
The trial included 87 patients with new-onset or significant worsening of headache following a minor traumatic brain injury or concussion, who were randomized to treatment with 675 mg subcutaneous fremanezumab once monthly, or placebo. The average elapsed time since the trauma was 8.1 years in the placebo group and 9.3 years in the fremanezumab arm. The average number of moderate to severe headache days was 18.5 days in the placebo group and 18.4 days in the fremanezumab group. The initial 12-week randomized period was followed by an open-label period in which patients on placebo received the study drug.
After 12 weeks of treatment, there was a greater decrease in moderate to severe headache days in the placebo arm, though the difference was not statistically significant (–5.1 versus –3.6 days; P = .1876). At 1 month, the two groups were similar (–4 days placebo versus –3.6 days fremanezumab), but there was a greater reduction in the placebo arm at 2 months (–6.7 versus –3.7 days) and 3 months (–7.21 versus –5.2 days).
A secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced a 50% or greater reduction in moderate to severe headache days, and there was no significant difference between placebo and fremanezumab after 12 weeks (26% versus 21%) or at month 1 (26% versus 19%), month 2 (33% versus 19%), or month 3 (28% versus 33%).
Adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (81% versus 72%), and all were mild or moderate, with the exception of one that occurred in the placebo group. There were no deaths, and no meaningful changes in laboratory or clinical examinations.
Dr. Spierings is on the advisory board for Satsuma, is a speaker for Teva, Amgen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Biohaven, and AbbVie, and has been a clinical trial principal investigator for Teva, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Biohaven, and Satsuma. Dr. Tepper has been a consultant for Teva. Dr. Rapoport has consulted for Teva and has been a speaker for Teva.
FROM AHS 2021
Nitroglycerine lends insight into migraine
Apparent migraines experienced by 19th century factory workers remain relevant to clinical medicine today. Those workers were employed in the manufacture of nitroglycerine, and many became patients of a physician who in 1880 described them as experiencing headache with nausea, vomiting, and walking lightly on their toes. A majority of patients were women.
When researchers in the 1950s worked out how to use nitroglycerine to trigger migraine-like headaches, the chemical became an important experimental tool, Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, said during a talk on the translational importance of nitroglycerine in headache medicine at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Some neurologists view nitroglycerine with skepticism, but that’s not necessarily warranted, said Dr. Goadsby. “To me, it’s underappreciated, but it has matured. If you were talking about this topic a decade ago, then the criticism would be that somehow that it’s not migraine, or it’s got nothing really to do with migraine,” he said in an interview.
But varying lines of clinical and experimental research have strengthened the case that “If I said to a colleague, ‘I’ve got this patient with headaches, and they’ve got nausea, and they’re sensitive to light. And if they move their head about, it’s worse,’ that sounds like migraine, and that’s what they’d say. The patients will tell you it’s the same, and they have the same premonitory symptoms. They respond to the same medicines,” said Dr. Goadsby.
The method is also one of the few available to study premonitory symptoms, since it is difficult to predict naturally-occurring migraines. Once the minimal dose of nitroglycerine dose to trigger an attack was worked out, researchers could use functional imaging to monitor what happens before and during the episode. To support this point, Dr. Goadsby cited a 2005 study in Brain by his own group. They used positron-emission tomography (PET) scans to conclude that lateralized brain dysfunction is associated with lateralized pain during migraine.
The premonitory stage is characterized by symptoms such as neck stiffness, cognitive impairment, mood alterations, and fatigue, as well as homeostatic symptoms such as sleepiness and polyuria. Other possible symptoms include photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and cranial autonomic symptoms. These symptoms can be studied and established with the use of nitroglycerin trigger studies.
Dr. Goadsby pointed out that triggered episodes can also be used to test therapeutics. Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, 5-HT1F receptor agonists, and substance P/neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists have all been tested against nitroglycerine-induced migraines.
Other studies have used repeat exposures to nitroglycerine to better understand the effects of chronic migraines. Dr. Goadsby cited an example by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago led by Amynah Pradhan, PhD, which administered nitroglycerine repeatedly to mice and found that it led to acute mechanical hyperalgesia and basal hyperalgesia. The latter effect was dose dependent and persistent after nitroglycerine administration stopped. The phosphodiesterase inhibitor sildenafil, which can trigger migraines in humans, made the effect worse, suggesting that nitric oxide may be the mediator.
Another study from Dr. Pradhan’s team looked used nitroglycerine to examine the delta opioid receptor (DOR) as a potential therapeutic target for migraine. In mice, they used nitroglycerine to induce migraines and then treated with the DOR agonist SNC80 and found that it alleviated symptoms in medical overuse headache, posttraumatic headache, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and chronic migraine models, suggesting that the pathway could have broad activity against headache.
Another study used nitroglycerine to induce migraines in mice engineered to have distinct missense mutations in the casein kinase 1–delta (CK1-delta) gene that had been identified in two human families. That work revealed cellular, physiological, and behavioral changes that suggested potential roles of CK1-delta in migraine pathogenesis.
“We were very attracted to nitroglycerine as a model because it is such a reliable human migraine trigger,” said Dr. Pradhan, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She noted that the ability to study nitroglycerine-induced migraine in both mice and humans allows researchers to confirm symptom and physiologic parallels between preclinical and clinical research. “It’s exciting to see parallel things happening, both clinically and preclinically, because I think that that helps move the field forward in terms of coming up with novel therapeutic targets and validating them,” she said.
Dr. Goadsby has financial relationships with Amgen, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Gerson Lerhman, Guidepoint, Aeon Biopharma, Alder Biopharmaceutical, Allergan, Biohaven, Clexio, Electrocore, eNeura, Epalex, GlaxoSmithKline, Impel Neuropharma, MundiPharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Santara Therapeutics, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and WL Gore. Dr. Pradhan has no relevant financial disclosures.
Apparent migraines experienced by 19th century factory workers remain relevant to clinical medicine today. Those workers were employed in the manufacture of nitroglycerine, and many became patients of a physician who in 1880 described them as experiencing headache with nausea, vomiting, and walking lightly on their toes. A majority of patients were women.
When researchers in the 1950s worked out how to use nitroglycerine to trigger migraine-like headaches, the chemical became an important experimental tool, Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, said during a talk on the translational importance of nitroglycerine in headache medicine at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Some neurologists view nitroglycerine with skepticism, but that’s not necessarily warranted, said Dr. Goadsby. “To me, it’s underappreciated, but it has matured. If you were talking about this topic a decade ago, then the criticism would be that somehow that it’s not migraine, or it’s got nothing really to do with migraine,” he said in an interview.
But varying lines of clinical and experimental research have strengthened the case that “If I said to a colleague, ‘I’ve got this patient with headaches, and they’ve got nausea, and they’re sensitive to light. And if they move their head about, it’s worse,’ that sounds like migraine, and that’s what they’d say. The patients will tell you it’s the same, and they have the same premonitory symptoms. They respond to the same medicines,” said Dr. Goadsby.
The method is also one of the few available to study premonitory symptoms, since it is difficult to predict naturally-occurring migraines. Once the minimal dose of nitroglycerine dose to trigger an attack was worked out, researchers could use functional imaging to monitor what happens before and during the episode. To support this point, Dr. Goadsby cited a 2005 study in Brain by his own group. They used positron-emission tomography (PET) scans to conclude that lateralized brain dysfunction is associated with lateralized pain during migraine.
The premonitory stage is characterized by symptoms such as neck stiffness, cognitive impairment, mood alterations, and fatigue, as well as homeostatic symptoms such as sleepiness and polyuria. Other possible symptoms include photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and cranial autonomic symptoms. These symptoms can be studied and established with the use of nitroglycerin trigger studies.
Dr. Goadsby pointed out that triggered episodes can also be used to test therapeutics. Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, 5-HT1F receptor agonists, and substance P/neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists have all been tested against nitroglycerine-induced migraines.
Other studies have used repeat exposures to nitroglycerine to better understand the effects of chronic migraines. Dr. Goadsby cited an example by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago led by Amynah Pradhan, PhD, which administered nitroglycerine repeatedly to mice and found that it led to acute mechanical hyperalgesia and basal hyperalgesia. The latter effect was dose dependent and persistent after nitroglycerine administration stopped. The phosphodiesterase inhibitor sildenafil, which can trigger migraines in humans, made the effect worse, suggesting that nitric oxide may be the mediator.
Another study from Dr. Pradhan’s team looked used nitroglycerine to examine the delta opioid receptor (DOR) as a potential therapeutic target for migraine. In mice, they used nitroglycerine to induce migraines and then treated with the DOR agonist SNC80 and found that it alleviated symptoms in medical overuse headache, posttraumatic headache, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and chronic migraine models, suggesting that the pathway could have broad activity against headache.
Another study used nitroglycerine to induce migraines in mice engineered to have distinct missense mutations in the casein kinase 1–delta (CK1-delta) gene that had been identified in two human families. That work revealed cellular, physiological, and behavioral changes that suggested potential roles of CK1-delta in migraine pathogenesis.
“We were very attracted to nitroglycerine as a model because it is such a reliable human migraine trigger,” said Dr. Pradhan, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She noted that the ability to study nitroglycerine-induced migraine in both mice and humans allows researchers to confirm symptom and physiologic parallels between preclinical and clinical research. “It’s exciting to see parallel things happening, both clinically and preclinically, because I think that that helps move the field forward in terms of coming up with novel therapeutic targets and validating them,” she said.
Dr. Goadsby has financial relationships with Amgen, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Gerson Lerhman, Guidepoint, Aeon Biopharma, Alder Biopharmaceutical, Allergan, Biohaven, Clexio, Electrocore, eNeura, Epalex, GlaxoSmithKline, Impel Neuropharma, MundiPharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Santara Therapeutics, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and WL Gore. Dr. Pradhan has no relevant financial disclosures.
Apparent migraines experienced by 19th century factory workers remain relevant to clinical medicine today. Those workers were employed in the manufacture of nitroglycerine, and many became patients of a physician who in 1880 described them as experiencing headache with nausea, vomiting, and walking lightly on their toes. A majority of patients were women.
When researchers in the 1950s worked out how to use nitroglycerine to trigger migraine-like headaches, the chemical became an important experimental tool, Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, said during a talk on the translational importance of nitroglycerine in headache medicine at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Some neurologists view nitroglycerine with skepticism, but that’s not necessarily warranted, said Dr. Goadsby. “To me, it’s underappreciated, but it has matured. If you were talking about this topic a decade ago, then the criticism would be that somehow that it’s not migraine, or it’s got nothing really to do with migraine,” he said in an interview.
But varying lines of clinical and experimental research have strengthened the case that “If I said to a colleague, ‘I’ve got this patient with headaches, and they’ve got nausea, and they’re sensitive to light. And if they move their head about, it’s worse,’ that sounds like migraine, and that’s what they’d say. The patients will tell you it’s the same, and they have the same premonitory symptoms. They respond to the same medicines,” said Dr. Goadsby.
The method is also one of the few available to study premonitory symptoms, since it is difficult to predict naturally-occurring migraines. Once the minimal dose of nitroglycerine dose to trigger an attack was worked out, researchers could use functional imaging to monitor what happens before and during the episode. To support this point, Dr. Goadsby cited a 2005 study in Brain by his own group. They used positron-emission tomography (PET) scans to conclude that lateralized brain dysfunction is associated with lateralized pain during migraine.
The premonitory stage is characterized by symptoms such as neck stiffness, cognitive impairment, mood alterations, and fatigue, as well as homeostatic symptoms such as sleepiness and polyuria. Other possible symptoms include photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and cranial autonomic symptoms. These symptoms can be studied and established with the use of nitroglycerin trigger studies.
Dr. Goadsby pointed out that triggered episodes can also be used to test therapeutics. Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, 5-HT1F receptor agonists, and substance P/neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists have all been tested against nitroglycerine-induced migraines.
Other studies have used repeat exposures to nitroglycerine to better understand the effects of chronic migraines. Dr. Goadsby cited an example by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago led by Amynah Pradhan, PhD, which administered nitroglycerine repeatedly to mice and found that it led to acute mechanical hyperalgesia and basal hyperalgesia. The latter effect was dose dependent and persistent after nitroglycerine administration stopped. The phosphodiesterase inhibitor sildenafil, which can trigger migraines in humans, made the effect worse, suggesting that nitric oxide may be the mediator.
Another study from Dr. Pradhan’s team looked used nitroglycerine to examine the delta opioid receptor (DOR) as a potential therapeutic target for migraine. In mice, they used nitroglycerine to induce migraines and then treated with the DOR agonist SNC80 and found that it alleviated symptoms in medical overuse headache, posttraumatic headache, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and chronic migraine models, suggesting that the pathway could have broad activity against headache.
Another study used nitroglycerine to induce migraines in mice engineered to have distinct missense mutations in the casein kinase 1–delta (CK1-delta) gene that had been identified in two human families. That work revealed cellular, physiological, and behavioral changes that suggested potential roles of CK1-delta in migraine pathogenesis.
“We were very attracted to nitroglycerine as a model because it is such a reliable human migraine trigger,” said Dr. Pradhan, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She noted that the ability to study nitroglycerine-induced migraine in both mice and humans allows researchers to confirm symptom and physiologic parallels between preclinical and clinical research. “It’s exciting to see parallel things happening, both clinically and preclinically, because I think that that helps move the field forward in terms of coming up with novel therapeutic targets and validating them,” she said.
Dr. Goadsby has financial relationships with Amgen, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Gerson Lerhman, Guidepoint, Aeon Biopharma, Alder Biopharmaceutical, Allergan, Biohaven, Clexio, Electrocore, eNeura, Epalex, GlaxoSmithKline, Impel Neuropharma, MundiPharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Santara Therapeutics, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and WL Gore. Dr. Pradhan has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM AHS 2021
Not your ordinary neuropathy
She has had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for the past 4 years. She initially presented with polyuria/polydipsia and a hemoglobin A1c level of 9.5. She has previously not tolerated metformin, and did not want to take any subsequent medications. She was seen 4 months ago and at that time had an A1c level of 12.5. She decided she wanted to really treat her diabetes as well as she could. She started consuming a low carbohydrate diet, restarted metformin and began using a continuous glucose monitor. She also started taking nighttime glargine insulin, and mealtime insulin apart. She reports she lost 20 pounds over the past 4 months, her blood sugars now run between 100-120 fasting, and up to 180 before meals. She has had a severe, sharp pain in both of her feet over the past month that is interfering with sleep and makes walking painful for her. An exam reveals hyperesthesia of both feet, and her A1c level is 7.5. What is the most likely cause of her neuropathic symptoms?
A. Vitamin B12 deficiency
B. Diabetic neuropathy
C. Insulin neuritis
D. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease
The most likely cause
In this case, certainly considering vitamin B12 deficiency is reasonable. It is highly unlikely though, given the rapidity of onset of symptoms, and that the patient has been on metformin for a very short period of time. Chronic metformin use is associated with low B12 levels, and the American Diabetes Association has advised that regular monitoring of vitamin B12 levels should be done on patients who are on long-term metformin.1
Diabetic neuropathy is also unlikely, given the rapidity of symptoms in this patient. What is most likely in this patient is treatment-induced neuropathy (TIN), first described with the name “insulin neuritis”.
Research on TIN
Gibbons and colleagues evaluated 16 patients with diabetes with recent marked, rapid improvement in glycemic control who developed a sudden, painful neuropathy.2 All developed symptoms within 8 weeks of intensive glucose control, with 69% having autonomic dysfunction as well, and all developing worsening retinopathy.
Gibbons and Freeman did a retrospective study of patients referred to a diabetic neuropathy clinic over a 5-year period to try to understand how prevalent TIN is.3
A total of 954 patients were evaluated for diabetic neuropathy. Treatment induced neuropathy was defined as a painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction occurring within 8 weeks of intensified treatment and a drop of the A1c level greater than 2 over a 3-month period.
A total of 104 patients (10.9%) met the criteria for treatment induced neuropathy. Patients who had a decrease in A1c had a much greater chance of developing a painful or autonomic neuropathy than patients who had no change in A1c (P < .0001). The same patients had a much higher risk of developing retinopathy (P < .001). The greater the reduction in A1c, the greater the risk. Patients whose A1c decreased by 2%-3% over 3 months had an absolute risk of 20%, whereas those with a A1c decease of greater than 4% had an 80% absolute risk.
Siddique and colleagues reported on three cases with very different clinical presentations of TIN.4 One patient had an acute third nerve palsy, another patient had a lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy, and the third patient presented with a diffuse painful sensory neuropathy and postural hypotension.
Most patients improve over time from their neuropathic symptoms, with better recovery in patients with type 1 diabetes.2
Pearl
Strongly consider treatment induced neuropathy in your patients with diabetes who present with acute painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction in the setting of rapid improvement of glucose control.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S90-102.
2. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Ann Neurol 2010; 67:534–41.
3. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Brain. 2015;138:43-52.
4. Siddique N et al. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2020 Feb 26;2020:19-0140.
She has had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for the past 4 years. She initially presented with polyuria/polydipsia and a hemoglobin A1c level of 9.5. She has previously not tolerated metformin, and did not want to take any subsequent medications. She was seen 4 months ago and at that time had an A1c level of 12.5. She decided she wanted to really treat her diabetes as well as she could. She started consuming a low carbohydrate diet, restarted metformin and began using a continuous glucose monitor. She also started taking nighttime glargine insulin, and mealtime insulin apart. She reports she lost 20 pounds over the past 4 months, her blood sugars now run between 100-120 fasting, and up to 180 before meals. She has had a severe, sharp pain in both of her feet over the past month that is interfering with sleep and makes walking painful for her. An exam reveals hyperesthesia of both feet, and her A1c level is 7.5. What is the most likely cause of her neuropathic symptoms?
A. Vitamin B12 deficiency
B. Diabetic neuropathy
C. Insulin neuritis
D. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease
The most likely cause
In this case, certainly considering vitamin B12 deficiency is reasonable. It is highly unlikely though, given the rapidity of onset of symptoms, and that the patient has been on metformin for a very short period of time. Chronic metformin use is associated with low B12 levels, and the American Diabetes Association has advised that regular monitoring of vitamin B12 levels should be done on patients who are on long-term metformin.1
Diabetic neuropathy is also unlikely, given the rapidity of symptoms in this patient. What is most likely in this patient is treatment-induced neuropathy (TIN), first described with the name “insulin neuritis”.
Research on TIN
Gibbons and colleagues evaluated 16 patients with diabetes with recent marked, rapid improvement in glycemic control who developed a sudden, painful neuropathy.2 All developed symptoms within 8 weeks of intensive glucose control, with 69% having autonomic dysfunction as well, and all developing worsening retinopathy.
Gibbons and Freeman did a retrospective study of patients referred to a diabetic neuropathy clinic over a 5-year period to try to understand how prevalent TIN is.3
A total of 954 patients were evaluated for diabetic neuropathy. Treatment induced neuropathy was defined as a painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction occurring within 8 weeks of intensified treatment and a drop of the A1c level greater than 2 over a 3-month period.
A total of 104 patients (10.9%) met the criteria for treatment induced neuropathy. Patients who had a decrease in A1c had a much greater chance of developing a painful or autonomic neuropathy than patients who had no change in A1c (P < .0001). The same patients had a much higher risk of developing retinopathy (P < .001). The greater the reduction in A1c, the greater the risk. Patients whose A1c decreased by 2%-3% over 3 months had an absolute risk of 20%, whereas those with a A1c decease of greater than 4% had an 80% absolute risk.
Siddique and colleagues reported on three cases with very different clinical presentations of TIN.4 One patient had an acute third nerve palsy, another patient had a lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy, and the third patient presented with a diffuse painful sensory neuropathy and postural hypotension.
Most patients improve over time from their neuropathic symptoms, with better recovery in patients with type 1 diabetes.2
Pearl
Strongly consider treatment induced neuropathy in your patients with diabetes who present with acute painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction in the setting of rapid improvement of glucose control.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S90-102.
2. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Ann Neurol 2010; 67:534–41.
3. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Brain. 2015;138:43-52.
4. Siddique N et al. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2020 Feb 26;2020:19-0140.
She has had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for the past 4 years. She initially presented with polyuria/polydipsia and a hemoglobin A1c level of 9.5. She has previously not tolerated metformin, and did not want to take any subsequent medications. She was seen 4 months ago and at that time had an A1c level of 12.5. She decided she wanted to really treat her diabetes as well as she could. She started consuming a low carbohydrate diet, restarted metformin and began using a continuous glucose monitor. She also started taking nighttime glargine insulin, and mealtime insulin apart. She reports she lost 20 pounds over the past 4 months, her blood sugars now run between 100-120 fasting, and up to 180 before meals. She has had a severe, sharp pain in both of her feet over the past month that is interfering with sleep and makes walking painful for her. An exam reveals hyperesthesia of both feet, and her A1c level is 7.5. What is the most likely cause of her neuropathic symptoms?
A. Vitamin B12 deficiency
B. Diabetic neuropathy
C. Insulin neuritis
D. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease
The most likely cause
In this case, certainly considering vitamin B12 deficiency is reasonable. It is highly unlikely though, given the rapidity of onset of symptoms, and that the patient has been on metformin for a very short period of time. Chronic metformin use is associated with low B12 levels, and the American Diabetes Association has advised that regular monitoring of vitamin B12 levels should be done on patients who are on long-term metformin.1
Diabetic neuropathy is also unlikely, given the rapidity of symptoms in this patient. What is most likely in this patient is treatment-induced neuropathy (TIN), first described with the name “insulin neuritis”.
Research on TIN
Gibbons and colleagues evaluated 16 patients with diabetes with recent marked, rapid improvement in glycemic control who developed a sudden, painful neuropathy.2 All developed symptoms within 8 weeks of intensive glucose control, with 69% having autonomic dysfunction as well, and all developing worsening retinopathy.
Gibbons and Freeman did a retrospective study of patients referred to a diabetic neuropathy clinic over a 5-year period to try to understand how prevalent TIN is.3
A total of 954 patients were evaluated for diabetic neuropathy. Treatment induced neuropathy was defined as a painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction occurring within 8 weeks of intensified treatment and a drop of the A1c level greater than 2 over a 3-month period.
A total of 104 patients (10.9%) met the criteria for treatment induced neuropathy. Patients who had a decrease in A1c had a much greater chance of developing a painful or autonomic neuropathy than patients who had no change in A1c (P < .0001). The same patients had a much higher risk of developing retinopathy (P < .001). The greater the reduction in A1c, the greater the risk. Patients whose A1c decreased by 2%-3% over 3 months had an absolute risk of 20%, whereas those with a A1c decease of greater than 4% had an 80% absolute risk.
Siddique and colleagues reported on three cases with very different clinical presentations of TIN.4 One patient had an acute third nerve palsy, another patient had a lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy, and the third patient presented with a diffuse painful sensory neuropathy and postural hypotension.
Most patients improve over time from their neuropathic symptoms, with better recovery in patients with type 1 diabetes.2
Pearl
Strongly consider treatment induced neuropathy in your patients with diabetes who present with acute painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction in the setting of rapid improvement of glucose control.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S90-102.
2. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Ann Neurol 2010; 67:534–41.
3. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Brain. 2015;138:43-52.
4. Siddique N et al. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2020 Feb 26;2020:19-0140.