Neurology Reviews

The calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs)for treatment of migraine have gained wide acceptance since their approval in 2018, but a real-world study has reported adverse event rates higher than those the preapproval clinical trials reported and has found that patients who fail on one of the treatments are likely to fail again if they’re switched to another.

At the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society, Larry Robbins, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, reported on the results of his postapproval study of 369 migraine patients taking one of the three approved CGRP mAbs. “If patients do not do well on one mAb, it is sometimes worthwhile to switch, but most patients do not do well from the second or third mAb as well,” Dr. Robbins said in an interview. “In addition, there are numerous adverse effects that were not captured in the official phase 3 studies. Efficacy has held up well, but for a number of reasons, the true adverse event profile is often missed.”
 

Assessing efficacy and adverse events

In evaluating the efficacy of the three approved CGRP mAbs, Dr. Robbins used measures of degree of relief based on percentage decrease of symptoms versus baseline and the number of migraine days, combined with the number of moderate or severe headache days. Most of the patients kept calendars and were interviewed by two headache specialists. The study also utilized a 10-point visual analog scale and averaged relief over 3 months.

Of the patients on erenumab (n = 220), 10% described 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 24% reported 71%-100% relief, 34% described 31%-70% relief, and 43% experienced 0%-30% relief. Adverse events among this group included constipation (20%), nausea (7%), increased headache and fatigue (5% for each), and joint pain and depression (3% for each). Three patients on erenumab experienced unspecified serious adverse reactions.

In the fremanezumab group (n = 79), 8% described 95%-100% relief, 18% had 71%-100% relief, 33% experienced 31%-70% improvement, and 50% had 30% improvement or less. Adverse events in these patients included nausea, constipation, and depression (6% each); increased headache and muscle pain or cramps (5% each); rash, joint pain, anxiety, fatigue, or weight gain (4% for each ); and injection-site reactions, irritability, or alopecia (3% combined).

Patients taking galcanezumab (n = 70) reported the following outcomes: 3% had 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 14% had 71%-100% relief, 46% with 31%-70% relief, and 40% had 0%-30% relief. This group’s adverse events included constipation (10%); depression and increased headache (6% for each); nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions (4% each ); and muscle pain or cramps, rash, anxiety, weight gain, or alopecia (3% each).

Dr. Robbins also assessed switching from one CGRP mAb to another for various reasons. “When the reason for switching was poor efficacy, only 27% of patients did well,” he stated in the presentation. “If the reason was adverse events, 33% did well. When insurance/financial reasons alone were the reason, but efficacy was adequate, 58% did well after switching.”

Overall, postapproval efficacy of the medications “held up well,” Dr. Robbins noted. “Efficacy after 2 months somewhat predicted how patients would do after 6 months.” Among the predictors of poor response his study identified were opioid use and moderate or severe refractory chronic migraine at baseline.

However, the rates of adverse events he reported were significantly greater than those reported in the clinical trials, Dr. Robbins said. He noted four reasons to explain this discrepancy: the trials did not use an 18-item supplemental checklist that he has advocated to identify patients at risk of side effects, the trials weren’t powered for adverse events, patients in the trials tended to be less refractory than those in the clinic, and that adverse events tend to be underreported in trials.

“Adverse events become disaggregated, with the same descriptors used for an adverse event,” Dr. Robbins said. “Examples include fatigue, somnolence, and tiredness; all may be 1%, while different patients are describing the same adverse event. It is possible to reaggregate the adverse events after the study, but this is fraught with error.”
 

Uncovering shortcomings in clinical trials

Emily Rubenstein Engel, MD, director of the Dalessio Headache Center at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., noted that Dr. Robbins’ findings are significant for two reasons. “Dr. Robbins has uncovered a general flaw in clinical trials, whereby the lack of consistency of adverse event terminology as well as the lack of a standardized questionnaire format for adverse events can result in significant under-reporting of adverse events,” she said.

“Specifically for the CGRPs,” Dr. Engel continued, “he has raised awareness that this new class of medication, however promising from an efficacy standpoint, has side effects that are much more frequent and severe than seen in the initial clinical trials.”

Dr. Robbins reported financial relationships with Allergan, Amgen and Teva. Dr. Engel has no financial relationships to disclose.

The calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs)for treatment of migraine have gained wide acceptance since their approval in 2018, but a real-world study has reported adverse event rates higher than those the preapproval clinical trials reported and has found that patients who fail on one of the treatments are likely to fail again if they’re switched to another.

At the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society, Larry Robbins, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, reported on the results of his postapproval study of 369 migraine patients taking one of the three approved CGRP mAbs. “If patients do not do well on one mAb, it is sometimes worthwhile to switch, but most patients do not do well from the second or third mAb as well,” Dr. Robbins said in an interview. “In addition, there are numerous adverse effects that were not captured in the official phase 3 studies. Efficacy has held up well, but for a number of reasons, the true adverse event profile is often missed.”
 

Assessing efficacy and adverse events

In evaluating the efficacy of the three approved CGRP mAbs, Dr. Robbins used measures of degree of relief based on percentage decrease of symptoms versus baseline and the number of migraine days, combined with the number of moderate or severe headache days. Most of the patients kept calendars and were interviewed by two headache specialists. The study also utilized a 10-point visual analog scale and averaged relief over 3 months.

Of the patients on erenumab (n = 220), 10% described 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 24% reported 71%-100% relief, 34% described 31%-70% relief, and 43% experienced 0%-30% relief. Adverse events among this group included constipation (20%), nausea (7%), increased headache and fatigue (5% for each), and joint pain and depression (3% for each). Three patients on erenumab experienced unspecified serious adverse reactions.

In the fremanezumab group (n = 79), 8% described 95%-100% relief, 18% had 71%-100% relief, 33% experienced 31%-70% improvement, and 50% had 30% improvement or less. Adverse events in these patients included nausea, constipation, and depression (6% each); increased headache and muscle pain or cramps (5% each); rash, joint pain, anxiety, fatigue, or weight gain (4% for each ); and injection-site reactions, irritability, or alopecia (3% combined).

Patients taking galcanezumab (n = 70) reported the following outcomes: 3% had 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 14% had 71%-100% relief, 46% with 31%-70% relief, and 40% had 0%-30% relief. This group’s adverse events included constipation (10%); depression and increased headache (6% for each); nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions (4% each ); and muscle pain or cramps, rash, anxiety, weight gain, or alopecia (3% each).

Dr. Robbins also assessed switching from one CGRP mAb to another for various reasons. “When the reason for switching was poor efficacy, only 27% of patients did well,” he stated in the presentation. “If the reason was adverse events, 33% did well. When insurance/financial reasons alone were the reason, but efficacy was adequate, 58% did well after switching.”

Overall, postapproval efficacy of the medications “held up well,” Dr. Robbins noted. “Efficacy after 2 months somewhat predicted how patients would do after 6 months.” Among the predictors of poor response his study identified were opioid use and moderate or severe refractory chronic migraine at baseline.

However, the rates of adverse events he reported were significantly greater than those reported in the clinical trials, Dr. Robbins said. He noted four reasons to explain this discrepancy: the trials did not use an 18-item supplemental checklist that he has advocated to identify patients at risk of side effects, the trials weren’t powered for adverse events, patients in the trials tended to be less refractory than those in the clinic, and that adverse events tend to be underreported in trials.

“Adverse events become disaggregated, with the same descriptors used for an adverse event,” Dr. Robbins said. “Examples include fatigue, somnolence, and tiredness; all may be 1%, while different patients are describing the same adverse event. It is possible to reaggregate the adverse events after the study, but this is fraught with error.”
 

Uncovering shortcomings in clinical trials

Emily Rubenstein Engel, MD, director of the Dalessio Headache Center at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., noted that Dr. Robbins’ findings are significant for two reasons. “Dr. Robbins has uncovered a general flaw in clinical trials, whereby the lack of consistency of adverse event terminology as well as the lack of a standardized questionnaire format for adverse events can result in significant under-reporting of adverse events,” she said.

“Specifically for the CGRPs,” Dr. Engel continued, “he has raised awareness that this new class of medication, however promising from an efficacy standpoint, has side effects that are much more frequent and severe than seen in the initial clinical trials.”

Dr. Robbins reported financial relationships with Allergan, Amgen and Teva. Dr. Engel has no financial relationships to disclose.

The calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs)for treatment of migraine have gained wide acceptance since their approval in 2018, but a real-world study has reported adverse event rates higher than those the preapproval clinical trials reported and has found that patients who fail on one of the treatments are likely to fail again if they’re switched to another.

At the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society, Larry Robbins, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, reported on the results of his postapproval study of 369 migraine patients taking one of the three approved CGRP mAbs. “If patients do not do well on one mAb, it is sometimes worthwhile to switch, but most patients do not do well from the second or third mAb as well,” Dr. Robbins said in an interview. “In addition, there are numerous adverse effects that were not captured in the official phase 3 studies. Efficacy has held up well, but for a number of reasons, the true adverse event profile is often missed.”
 

Assessing efficacy and adverse events

In evaluating the efficacy of the three approved CGRP mAbs, Dr. Robbins used measures of degree of relief based on percentage decrease of symptoms versus baseline and the number of migraine days, combined with the number of moderate or severe headache days. Most of the patients kept calendars and were interviewed by two headache specialists. The study also utilized a 10-point visual analog scale and averaged relief over 3 months.

Of the patients on erenumab (n = 220), 10% described 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 24% reported 71%-100% relief, 34% described 31%-70% relief, and 43% experienced 0%-30% relief. Adverse events among this group included constipation (20%), nausea (7%), increased headache and fatigue (5% for each), and joint pain and depression (3% for each). Three patients on erenumab experienced unspecified serious adverse reactions.

In the fremanezumab group (n = 79), 8% described 95%-100% relief, 18% had 71%-100% relief, 33% experienced 31%-70% improvement, and 50% had 30% improvement or less. Adverse events in these patients included nausea, constipation, and depression (6% each); increased headache and muscle pain or cramps (5% each); rash, joint pain, anxiety, fatigue, or weight gain (4% for each ); and injection-site reactions, irritability, or alopecia (3% combined).

Patients taking galcanezumab (n = 70) reported the following outcomes: 3% had 95%-100% relief of symptoms, 14% had 71%-100% relief, 46% with 31%-70% relief, and 40% had 0%-30% relief. This group’s adverse events included constipation (10%); depression and increased headache (6% for each); nausea, fatigue, or injection-site reactions (4% each ); and muscle pain or cramps, rash, anxiety, weight gain, or alopecia (3% each).

Dr. Robbins also assessed switching from one CGRP mAb to another for various reasons. “When the reason for switching was poor efficacy, only 27% of patients did well,” he stated in the presentation. “If the reason was adverse events, 33% did well. When insurance/financial reasons alone were the reason, but efficacy was adequate, 58% did well after switching.”

Overall, postapproval efficacy of the medications “held up well,” Dr. Robbins noted. “Efficacy after 2 months somewhat predicted how patients would do after 6 months.” Among the predictors of poor response his study identified were opioid use and moderate or severe refractory chronic migraine at baseline.

However, the rates of adverse events he reported were significantly greater than those reported in the clinical trials, Dr. Robbins said. He noted four reasons to explain this discrepancy: the trials did not use an 18-item supplemental checklist that he has advocated to identify patients at risk of side effects, the trials weren’t powered for adverse events, patients in the trials tended to be less refractory than those in the clinic, and that adverse events tend to be underreported in trials.

“Adverse events become disaggregated, with the same descriptors used for an adverse event,” Dr. Robbins said. “Examples include fatigue, somnolence, and tiredness; all may be 1%, while different patients are describing the same adverse event. It is possible to reaggregate the adverse events after the study, but this is fraught with error.”
 

Uncovering shortcomings in clinical trials

Emily Rubenstein Engel, MD, director of the Dalessio Headache Center at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., noted that Dr. Robbins’ findings are significant for two reasons. “Dr. Robbins has uncovered a general flaw in clinical trials, whereby the lack of consistency of adverse event terminology as well as the lack of a standardized questionnaire format for adverse events can result in significant under-reporting of adverse events,” she said.

“Specifically for the CGRPs,” Dr. Engel continued, “he has raised awareness that this new class of medication, however promising from an efficacy standpoint, has side effects that are much more frequent and severe than seen in the initial clinical trials.”

Dr. Robbins reported financial relationships with Allergan, Amgen and Teva. Dr. Engel has no financial relationships to disclose.

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, and ranks high in patient satisfaction, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. In development by Impel NeuroPharma, the new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE.

“Our analysis of the data suggests that nothing new or untoward seemed to be happening as a result of delivering DHE to the upper nasal space,” Stephen Shrewsbury, MD, chief medical officer of Impel NeuroPharma, said in an interview. The company released key results from its phase 3 clinical trial, while a poster examining patient satisfaction was presented by Dr. Shrewsbury at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

An improved intranasal formulation

The product isn’t the first effort to develop an inhaled form of DHE. An inhaled version called Migranal, marketed by Bausch Health, delivers DHE to the front part of the nose, where it may be lost to the upper lip or down the throat, according to Dr. Shrewsbury. Impel’s formulation (INP104) delivers the drug to the upper nasal space, where an earlier phase 1 trial demonstrated it could achieve higher serum concentrations compared with Migranal.

In 2018, MAP Pharmaceuticals came close to a product, but it was ultimately rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because DHE was not stable in the propellant used in the formulation. This time is different, said Dr. Shrewsbury, who was chief medical officer at MAP before joining Impel. The new device holds DHE and the propellant in separate compartments until they are combined right before use, which should circumvent stability problems.

Dr. Shrewsbury believes that patients will welcome an inhaled version of DHE. “People with migraines don’t want to have to go into hospital or even an infusion center if they can help it,” he said.

The study was one of a number of presentations at the AHS meeting that focused on novel delivery methods for established drugs. “The idea of taking things that we know work and improving upon them, both in terms of formulation and then delivery, that’s a common theme. My impression is that this will be an interesting arrow to have in our sling,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study.
 

Open-label trial results

The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). Maximum doses included two per day and three per week.

There were no new safety signals or concern trends in nasal safety findings. 15.0% of patients experienced nasal congestion, 6.8% nausea, 5.1% nasal discomfort, and 5.1% unpleasant taste.

A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours (severe or moderate pain reduced to mild or none, or mild pain reduced to none) following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. 16.3% reported pain relief onset at 15 minutes, with continued improvement over time. During weeks 21-24 of the study, 98.4% and 95% of patients reporting no recurrence of their migraine or use of rescue medications during the 24- and 48-hour periods after using INP104. “Once they got rid of the pain, it didn’t come back, and that’s been one of the shortcomings of many of the available oral therapies – although some of them can be quite effective, that effect can wear off and people can find their migraine comes back within a 24- or 48-hour period,” said Dr. Shrewsbury.

The drug was also rated as convenient, with 83.6% of participants strongly agreeing (50%) or agreeing (33.6%) that it is easy to use.

“It certainly looks like compliance will be good. The possibility is that this will be quite useful,” said Dr. Charles, who is also enthusiastic about some of the other drug formulations announced at the meeting. “It really is just fun times for us as clinicians to be able to have so many different options for patients,” he said.

Dr. Shrewsbury is an employee of Impel NeuroPharma, which funded the study.* Dr. Charles consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

SOURCE: Shrewsbury S, et al. AHS 2020. Abstract 832509.

*Correction, 6/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Impel NeuroPharma.

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, and ranks high in patient satisfaction, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. In development by Impel NeuroPharma, the new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE.

“Our analysis of the data suggests that nothing new or untoward seemed to be happening as a result of delivering DHE to the upper nasal space,” Stephen Shrewsbury, MD, chief medical officer of Impel NeuroPharma, said in an interview. The company released key results from its phase 3 clinical trial, while a poster examining patient satisfaction was presented by Dr. Shrewsbury at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

An improved intranasal formulation

The product isn’t the first effort to develop an inhaled form of DHE. An inhaled version called Migranal, marketed by Bausch Health, delivers DHE to the front part of the nose, where it may be lost to the upper lip or down the throat, according to Dr. Shrewsbury. Impel’s formulation (INP104) delivers the drug to the upper nasal space, where an earlier phase 1 trial demonstrated it could achieve higher serum concentrations compared with Migranal.

In 2018, MAP Pharmaceuticals came close to a product, but it was ultimately rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because DHE was not stable in the propellant used in the formulation. This time is different, said Dr. Shrewsbury, who was chief medical officer at MAP before joining Impel. The new device holds DHE and the propellant in separate compartments until they are combined right before use, which should circumvent stability problems.

Dr. Shrewsbury believes that patients will welcome an inhaled version of DHE. “People with migraines don’t want to have to go into hospital or even an infusion center if they can help it,” he said.

The study was one of a number of presentations at the AHS meeting that focused on novel delivery methods for established drugs. “The idea of taking things that we know work and improving upon them, both in terms of formulation and then delivery, that’s a common theme. My impression is that this will be an interesting arrow to have in our sling,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study.
 

Open-label trial results

The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). Maximum doses included two per day and three per week.

There were no new safety signals or concern trends in nasal safety findings. 15.0% of patients experienced nasal congestion, 6.8% nausea, 5.1% nasal discomfort, and 5.1% unpleasant taste.

A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours (severe or moderate pain reduced to mild or none, or mild pain reduced to none) following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. 16.3% reported pain relief onset at 15 minutes, with continued improvement over time. During weeks 21-24 of the study, 98.4% and 95% of patients reporting no recurrence of their migraine or use of rescue medications during the 24- and 48-hour periods after using INP104. “Once they got rid of the pain, it didn’t come back, and that’s been one of the shortcomings of many of the available oral therapies – although some of them can be quite effective, that effect can wear off and people can find their migraine comes back within a 24- or 48-hour period,” said Dr. Shrewsbury.

The drug was also rated as convenient, with 83.6% of participants strongly agreeing (50%) or agreeing (33.6%) that it is easy to use.

“It certainly looks like compliance will be good. The possibility is that this will be quite useful,” said Dr. Charles, who is also enthusiastic about some of the other drug formulations announced at the meeting. “It really is just fun times for us as clinicians to be able to have so many different options for patients,” he said.

Dr. Shrewsbury is an employee of Impel NeuroPharma, which funded the study.* Dr. Charles consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

SOURCE: Shrewsbury S, et al. AHS 2020. Abstract 832509.

*Correction, 6/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Impel NeuroPharma.

An intranasal form of dihydroergotamine (DHE) targeting the upper nasal region is safe and effective for the treatment of migraine, and ranks high in patient satisfaction, according to results from a phase 3 clinical trial. In development by Impel NeuroPharma, the new formulation could offer patients an at-home alternative to intramuscular infusions or intravenous injections currently used to deliver DHE.

“Our analysis of the data suggests that nothing new or untoward seemed to be happening as a result of delivering DHE to the upper nasal space,” Stephen Shrewsbury, MD, chief medical officer of Impel NeuroPharma, said in an interview. The company released key results from its phase 3 clinical trial, while a poster examining patient satisfaction was presented by Dr. Shrewsbury at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

An improved intranasal formulation

The product isn’t the first effort to develop an inhaled form of DHE. An inhaled version called Migranal, marketed by Bausch Health, delivers DHE to the front part of the nose, where it may be lost to the upper lip or down the throat, according to Dr. Shrewsbury. Impel’s formulation (INP104) delivers the drug to the upper nasal space, where an earlier phase 1 trial demonstrated it could achieve higher serum concentrations compared with Migranal.

In 2018, MAP Pharmaceuticals came close to a product, but it was ultimately rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because DHE was not stable in the propellant used in the formulation. This time is different, said Dr. Shrewsbury, who was chief medical officer at MAP before joining Impel. The new device holds DHE and the propellant in separate compartments until they are combined right before use, which should circumvent stability problems.

Dr. Shrewsbury believes that patients will welcome an inhaled version of DHE. “People with migraines don’t want to have to go into hospital or even an infusion center if they can help it,” he said.

The study was one of a number of presentations at the AHS meeting that focused on novel delivery methods for established drugs. “The idea of taking things that we know work and improving upon them, both in terms of formulation and then delivery, that’s a common theme. My impression is that this will be an interesting arrow to have in our sling,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study.
 

Open-label trial results

The STOP 301 phase 3 open-label safety and tolerability trial treated over 5,650 migraine attacks in 354 patients who self-administered INP104 for up to 52 weeks. They were provided up to three doses per week (1.45 mg in a dose of two puffs, one per nostril). Maximum doses included two per day and three per week.

There were no new safety signals or concern trends in nasal safety findings. 15.0% of patients experienced nasal congestion, 6.8% nausea, 5.1% nasal discomfort, and 5.1% unpleasant taste.

A total of 66.3% of participants reported pain relief by 2 hours (severe or moderate pain reduced to mild or none, or mild pain reduced to none) following a dose, and 38% had freedom from pain. 16.3% reported pain relief onset at 15 minutes, with continued improvement over time. During weeks 21-24 of the study, 98.4% and 95% of patients reporting no recurrence of their migraine or use of rescue medications during the 24- and 48-hour periods after using INP104. “Once they got rid of the pain, it didn’t come back, and that’s been one of the shortcomings of many of the available oral therapies – although some of them can be quite effective, that effect can wear off and people can find their migraine comes back within a 24- or 48-hour period,” said Dr. Shrewsbury.

The drug was also rated as convenient, with 83.6% of participants strongly agreeing (50%) or agreeing (33.6%) that it is easy to use.

“It certainly looks like compliance will be good. The possibility is that this will be quite useful,” said Dr. Charles, who is also enthusiastic about some of the other drug formulations announced at the meeting. “It really is just fun times for us as clinicians to be able to have so many different options for patients,” he said.

Dr. Shrewsbury is an employee of Impel NeuroPharma, which funded the study.* Dr. Charles consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

SOURCE: Shrewsbury S, et al. AHS 2020. Abstract 832509.

*Correction, 6/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Impel NeuroPharma.

When sterilizing face masks, the type of face mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to researchers. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks.

With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%.

In a research letter published online June 15 in JAMA Network Open, researchers from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, report the results of a study of the two sterilization techniques on the pressure drop and filtration efficiency of N95, KN95, and surgical face masks.

“The H₂O₂ treatment showed a small effect on the overall filtration efficiency of the tested masks, but the ClO₂ treatment showed marked reduction in the overall filtration efficiency of the KN95s and surgical face masks. All pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range,” the researchers write.

The study did not evaluate the effect of repeated sterilizations on face masks.

Five masks of each type were sterilized with either H₂O₂ or ClO₂. Masks were then placed in a test chamber, and a salt aerosol was nebulized to assess both upstream and downstream filtration as well as pressure drop. The researchers used a mobility particle sizer to measure particle number concentration from 16.8 nm to 514 nm. An acceptable pressure drop was defined as a drop of less than 1.38 inches of water (35 mm) for inhalation.

Although pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range for all three mask types following sterilization with either method, H₂O₂ sterilization yielded the least reduction in filtration efficacy in all cases. After sterilization with H₂O₂, filtration efficiencies were 96.6%, 97.1%, and 91.6% for the N95s, KN95s, and the surgical face masks, respectively. In contrast, filtration efficiencies after ClO₂ sterilization were 95.1%, 76.2%, and 77.9%, respectively.

The researchers note that, although overall filtration efficiency was maintained with ClO₂ sterilization, there was a significant drop in efficiency with respect to particles of approximately 300 nm (0.3 microns) in size. For particles of that size, mean filtration efficiency decreased to 86.2% for N95s, 40.8% for KN95s, and 47.1% for surgical face masks.

The testing described in the report is “quite affordable at $350 per mask type, so it is hard to imagine any health care provider cannot set aside a small budget to conduct such an important test,” author Evan Floyd, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

Given the high demand for effective face masks and the current risk for counterfeit products, Floyd suggested that individual facilities test all masks intended for use by healthcare workers before and after sterilization procedures.

“However, if for some reason testing is not an option, we would recommend sticking to established brands and suppliers, perhaps reach out to your state health department or a local representative of the strategic stockpile of PPE,” he noted.

The authors acknowledge that further studies using a larger sample size and a greater variety of masks, as well as studies to evaluate different sterilization techniques, are required. Further, “measuring the respirator’s filtration efficiency by aerosol size instead of only measuring the overall filtration efficiency” should also be considered. Such an approach would enable researchers to evaluate the degree to which masks protect against specific infectious agents.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When sterilizing face masks, the type of face mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to researchers. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks.

With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%.

In a research letter published online June 15 in JAMA Network Open, researchers from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, report the results of a study of the two sterilization techniques on the pressure drop and filtration efficiency of N95, KN95, and surgical face masks.

“The H₂O₂ treatment showed a small effect on the overall filtration efficiency of the tested masks, but the ClO₂ treatment showed marked reduction in the overall filtration efficiency of the KN95s and surgical face masks. All pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range,” the researchers write.

The study did not evaluate the effect of repeated sterilizations on face masks.

Five masks of each type were sterilized with either H₂O₂ or ClO₂. Masks were then placed in a test chamber, and a salt aerosol was nebulized to assess both upstream and downstream filtration as well as pressure drop. The researchers used a mobility particle sizer to measure particle number concentration from 16.8 nm to 514 nm. An acceptable pressure drop was defined as a drop of less than 1.38 inches of water (35 mm) for inhalation.

Although pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range for all three mask types following sterilization with either method, H₂O₂ sterilization yielded the least reduction in filtration efficacy in all cases. After sterilization with H₂O₂, filtration efficiencies were 96.6%, 97.1%, and 91.6% for the N95s, KN95s, and the surgical face masks, respectively. In contrast, filtration efficiencies after ClO₂ sterilization were 95.1%, 76.2%, and 77.9%, respectively.

The researchers note that, although overall filtration efficiency was maintained with ClO₂ sterilization, there was a significant drop in efficiency with respect to particles of approximately 300 nm (0.3 microns) in size. For particles of that size, mean filtration efficiency decreased to 86.2% for N95s, 40.8% for KN95s, and 47.1% for surgical face masks.

The testing described in the report is “quite affordable at $350 per mask type, so it is hard to imagine any health care provider cannot set aside a small budget to conduct such an important test,” author Evan Floyd, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

Given the high demand for effective face masks and the current risk for counterfeit products, Floyd suggested that individual facilities test all masks intended for use by healthcare workers before and after sterilization procedures.

“However, if for some reason testing is not an option, we would recommend sticking to established brands and suppliers, perhaps reach out to your state health department or a local representative of the strategic stockpile of PPE,” he noted.

The authors acknowledge that further studies using a larger sample size and a greater variety of masks, as well as studies to evaluate different sterilization techniques, are required. Further, “measuring the respirator’s filtration efficiency by aerosol size instead of only measuring the overall filtration efficiency” should also be considered. Such an approach would enable researchers to evaluate the degree to which masks protect against specific infectious agents.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When sterilizing face masks, the type of face mask and the method of sterilization have a bearing on subsequent filtration efficiency, according to researchers. The greatest reduction in filtration efficiency after sterilization occurred with surgical face masks.

With plasma vapor hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) sterilization, filtration efficiency of N95 and KN95 masks was maintained at more than 95%, but for surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 95%. With chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) sterilization, on the other hand, filtration efficiency was maintained at above 95% for N95 masks, but for KN95 and surgical face masks, filtration efficiency was reduced to less than 80%.

In a research letter published online June 15 in JAMA Network Open, researchers from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, report the results of a study of the two sterilization techniques on the pressure drop and filtration efficiency of N95, KN95, and surgical face masks.

“The H₂O₂ treatment showed a small effect on the overall filtration efficiency of the tested masks, but the ClO₂ treatment showed marked reduction in the overall filtration efficiency of the KN95s and surgical face masks. All pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range,” the researchers write.

The study did not evaluate the effect of repeated sterilizations on face masks.

Five masks of each type were sterilized with either H₂O₂ or ClO₂. Masks were then placed in a test chamber, and a salt aerosol was nebulized to assess both upstream and downstream filtration as well as pressure drop. The researchers used a mobility particle sizer to measure particle number concentration from 16.8 nm to 514 nm. An acceptable pressure drop was defined as a drop of less than 1.38 inches of water (35 mm) for inhalation.

Although pressure drop changes were within the acceptable range for all three mask types following sterilization with either method, H₂O₂ sterilization yielded the least reduction in filtration efficacy in all cases. After sterilization with H₂O₂, filtration efficiencies were 96.6%, 97.1%, and 91.6% for the N95s, KN95s, and the surgical face masks, respectively. In contrast, filtration efficiencies after ClO₂ sterilization were 95.1%, 76.2%, and 77.9%, respectively.

The researchers note that, although overall filtration efficiency was maintained with ClO₂ sterilization, there was a significant drop in efficiency with respect to particles of approximately 300 nm (0.3 microns) in size. For particles of that size, mean filtration efficiency decreased to 86.2% for N95s, 40.8% for KN95s, and 47.1% for surgical face masks.

The testing described in the report is “quite affordable at $350 per mask type, so it is hard to imagine any health care provider cannot set aside a small budget to conduct such an important test,” author Evan Floyd, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

Given the high demand for effective face masks and the current risk for counterfeit products, Floyd suggested that individual facilities test all masks intended for use by healthcare workers before and after sterilization procedures.

“However, if for some reason testing is not an option, we would recommend sticking to established brands and suppliers, perhaps reach out to your state health department or a local representative of the strategic stockpile of PPE,” he noted.

The authors acknowledge that further studies using a larger sample size and a greater variety of masks, as well as studies to evaluate different sterilization techniques, are required. Further, “measuring the respirator’s filtration efficiency by aerosol size instead of only measuring the overall filtration efficiency” should also be considered. Such an approach would enable researchers to evaluate the degree to which masks protect against specific infectious agents.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has escalated everyone’s stress levels, especially clinicians caring for hospitalized patients. New pressures have added to everyday stress, new studies have revised prior patient care recommendations, and the world generally seems upside down. What can a busy hospitalist do to maintain a modicum of sanity in all the craziness?

The stressors facing hospitalists

Uncertainty

Of all the burdens COVID-19 has unleashed, the biggest may be uncertainty. Not only is there unease about the virus itself, there also is legitimate concern about the future of medicine, said Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and senior director of clinical affairs at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora.

“What does it look like after an event like this, particularly in areas like academic medicine and teaching our next generation and getting funding for research? And how do we continue to produce physicians that can provide excellent care?” she asked.

There is also uncertainty in the best way to care for patients, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“There are some models that are emerging to predict who will have a worse outcome, but they’re still not great models, so we have uncertainty for a given patient.” And, she noted, as the science continues to evolve, there exists a constant worry that “you might have inadvertently caused someone harm.”

The financial implications of the pandemic are creating uncertainty too. “When you fund a health care system with elective procedures and you can’t do those, and instead have to shift to the most essential services, a lot of places are seeing a massive deficit, which is going to affect staff morale and some physician offices are going to close,” said Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a primary care and internal medicine physician and chair of the King County Medical Society Physician Wellness Committee in Seattle.
 

Fear

When the pandemic began in the United States, “fear of the unknown was perhaps the scariest part, particularly as it pertained to personal protective equipment,” said Mark Rudolph, MD, SFHM, chief experience officer and vice president of patient experience and physician development at Sound Physicians in Tacoma, Wash. “For most clinicians, this is the first time that they are themselves in harm’s way while they do their jobs. And worse, they risk bringing the virus home to their families. That is the concern I hear most.”

Anxiety

Worrying about being able to provide excellent patient care is a big stressor, especially since this is the heart and soul of why most hospitalists have gone into their line of work.

“Part of providing excellent care to your patients is providing excellent supportive care to their families,” Dr. Harry said. “There’s some dissonance there in not being able to allow the family to come visit, but wanting to keep them safe, and it feels really hard to support your patients and support their families in the best way. It can feel like you’re just watching and waiting to see what will happen, and that we don’t have a lot of agency over which direction things take.”

There is concern for health care team members as well, Dr. Harry added. “Physicians care a lot about their teams and how they’re doing. I think there’s a sense of esprit de corps among folks and worry for each other there.”
 

Guilt

Although you may be at the hospital all day, you may feel guilty when you are not providing direct patient care. Or maybe you or someone on your team has an immunodeficiency and can’t be on the front line. Perhaps one of your team members contracted COVID-19 and you did not. Whatever the case, guilt is another emotion that is rampant among hospitalists right now, Dr. Barrett said.

Burnout

Unfortunately, burnout is a potential reality in times of high stress. “Burnout is dynamic,” said Dr. Poorman. “It’s a process by which your emotional and cognitive reserves are exhausted. The people with the highest burnout are the ones who are still trying to provide the standard of care, or above the standard of care in dysfunctional systems.”

Dr. Harry noted that burnout presents in different ways for different people, but Dr. Rudolph added that it’s crucial for hospitalist team members to watch for signs of burnout so they can intervene and/or get help for their colleagues.

Warning signs in yourself or others that burnout could be on the horizon include:

• Fatigue/exhaustion – Whether emotional or physical (or both), this can become a problem if it “just doesn’t seem to go away despite rest and time away from work,” said Dr. Rudolph.
• Behavioral changes – Any behavior that’s out of the ordinary may be a red flag, like lashing out at someone at work.
• Overwork – Working too much can be caused by an inability to let go of patient care, Dr. Barrett said.
• Not working enough – This may include avoiding tasks and having difficulty meeting deadlines.
• Maladaptive coping behaviors – Excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs is a common coping mechanism. “Even excessive consumption of news is something that people are using to numb out a little bit,” said Dr. Harry.
• Depersonalization – “This is where you start to look at patients, colleagues, or administrators as ‘them’ and you can’t connect as deeply,” Dr. Harry said. “Part of that’s protective and a normal thing to do during a big trauma like this, but it’s also incredibly distancing. Any language that people start using that feels like ‘us’ or ‘them’ is a warning sign.”
• Disengagement – Many people disengage from their work, but Dr. Poorman said physicians tend to disengage from other parts of their lives, such as exercise and family interaction.

Protecting yourself while supporting others

Like the illustration of putting the oxygen mask on yourself first so you can help others, it’s important to protect your own mental and physical health as you support your fellow physicians. Here’s what the experts suggest.

Focus on basic needs

“When you’re in the midst of a trauma, which we are, you don’t want to open all of that up and go to the depths of your thoughts about the grief of all of it because it can actually make the trauma worse,” said Dr. Harry. “There’s a lot of literature that debriefing is really helpful after the event, but if you do it during the event, it can be really dangerous.”

Instead, she said, the goal should be focusing on your basic needs and what you need to do to get through each day, like keeping you and your family in good health. “What is your purpose? Staying connected to why you do this and staying focused on the present is really important,” Dr. Harry noted.

Do your best to get a good night’s sleep, exercise as much as you can, talk to others, and see a mental health provider if your anxiety is too high, advises Dr. Barrett. “Even avoiding blue light from phones and screens within 2 hours of bedtime, parking further away from the hospital and walking, and taking the stairs are things that add up in a big way.”
 

Keep up your normal routine

“Right now, it’s really critical for clinicians to keep up components of their routine that feel ‘normal,’ ” Dr. Rudolph said. “Whether it’s exercise, playing board games with their kids, or spending time on a hobby, it’s critical to allow yourself these comfortable, predictable, and rewarding detours.”

Set limits

People under stress tend to find unhealthy ways to cope. Instead, try being intentional about what you are consuming by putting limits on things like your news, alcohol consumption, and the number of hours you work, said Dr. Harry.

Implement a culture of wellness

Dr. Barrett believes in creating the work culture we want to be in, one that ensures people have psychological safety, allows them to ask for help, encourages them to disconnect completely from work, and makes them feel valued and listened to. She likes the example of “the pause,” which is called by a team member right after a patient expires.

“It’s a 30-second moment of silence where we reflect on the patient, their loved ones, and every member of the health care team who helped support and treat them,” said Dr. Barrett. “At the conclusion, you say: ‘Thank you. Is there anything you need to be able to go back to the care of other patients?’ Because it’s unnatural to have this terrible thing that happened and then just act like nothing happened.”
 

Target resources

Be proactive and know where to find resources before you need them, advised Dr. Harry. “Most institutions have free mental health resources, either through their employee assistance programs or HR, plus there’s lots of national organizations that are offering free resources to health care providers.”

Focus on what you can control

Separating what is under your control from what is not is a struggle for everyone, Dr. Poorman said, but it’s helpful to think about the ways you can have an impact and what you’re able to control.

“There was a woman who was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson’s that I heard giving an interview at the beginning of this pandemic,” she said. “It was the most helpful advice I got, which was: ‘Think of the next good thing you can do.’ You can’t fix everything, so what’s the next good thing you can do?”
 

Maintain connectivity

Make sure you are utilizing your support circle and staying connected. “That sense of connection is incredibly protective on multiple fronts for depression, for burnout, for suicide ideation, etc.,” Dr. Harry said.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s your teammates at work, your family at home, your best friend from medical school – whomever you can debrief with, vent with, and just share your thoughts and feelings with, these outlets are critical for all of us to process our emotions and diffuse stress and anxiety,” said Dr. Rudolph.

Dr. Poorman is concerned that there could be a spike in physician suicides caused by increased stress, so she also encourages talking openly about what is going on and about getting help when it’s necessary. “Many of us are afraid to seek care because we can actually have our ability to practice medicine questioned, but now is not the time for heroes. Now is the time for people who are willing to recognize their own strengths and limitations to take care of one another.”
 

Be compassionate toward others

Keep in mind that everyone is stressed out and offer empathy and compassion. “I think everybody’s struggling to try to figure this out and the more that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt and a little grace, the more protective that is,” said Dr. Harry.

Listening is meaningful too. “Recognizing opportunities to validate and acknowledge the feelings that are being shared with you by your colleagues is critical,” Dr. Rudolph said. “We all need to know that we’re not alone, that our thoughts and feelings are okay, and when we share a difficult story, the value of someone saying something as simple as, ‘wow, that sounds like it was really hard,’ is immense.”
 

Be compassionate toward yourself

Try to give yourself a break and be as compassionate with yourself as you would with others. It’s okay that you’re not getting in shape, publishing prolifically, or redesigning your house right now.

“There’s a lot of data linking lack of self-compassion to burnout,” said Dr. Harry. She says there are courses on self-compassion available that help you work on being kinder to yourself.
 

Get a “battle buddy”

The American Medical Association has a free “buddy system” program called PeerRx to help physicians cope during the pandemic. Dr. Rudolph said that now is a great time to use this military-developed intervention in which each team member checks in with a chosen partner at agreed-upon intervals.

For example, “You can tell that person: ‘If I don’t call my family for a week that’s a red flag for me.’ And then you hold each other accountable to those things,” Dr. Harry said.

The buddy system is another way to harness that sense of connection that is so vital to our health and well-being.

“The simple act of showing that you care … can make all the difference when you’re doing this kind of work that is both challenging and dangerous,” said Dr. Rudolph.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has escalated everyone’s stress levels, especially clinicians caring for hospitalized patients. New pressures have added to everyday stress, new studies have revised prior patient care recommendations, and the world generally seems upside down. What can a busy hospitalist do to maintain a modicum of sanity in all the craziness?

The stressors facing hospitalists

Uncertainty

Of all the burdens COVID-19 has unleashed, the biggest may be uncertainty. Not only is there unease about the virus itself, there also is legitimate concern about the future of medicine, said Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and senior director of clinical affairs at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora.

“What does it look like after an event like this, particularly in areas like academic medicine and teaching our next generation and getting funding for research? And how do we continue to produce physicians that can provide excellent care?” she asked.

There is also uncertainty in the best way to care for patients, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“There are some models that are emerging to predict who will have a worse outcome, but they’re still not great models, so we have uncertainty for a given patient.” And, she noted, as the science continues to evolve, there exists a constant worry that “you might have inadvertently caused someone harm.”

The financial implications of the pandemic are creating uncertainty too. “When you fund a health care system with elective procedures and you can’t do those, and instead have to shift to the most essential services, a lot of places are seeing a massive deficit, which is going to affect staff morale and some physician offices are going to close,” said Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a primary care and internal medicine physician and chair of the King County Medical Society Physician Wellness Committee in Seattle.
 

Fear

When the pandemic began in the United States, “fear of the unknown was perhaps the scariest part, particularly as it pertained to personal protective equipment,” said Mark Rudolph, MD, SFHM, chief experience officer and vice president of patient experience and physician development at Sound Physicians in Tacoma, Wash. “For most clinicians, this is the first time that they are themselves in harm’s way while they do their jobs. And worse, they risk bringing the virus home to their families. That is the concern I hear most.”

Anxiety

Worrying about being able to provide excellent patient care is a big stressor, especially since this is the heart and soul of why most hospitalists have gone into their line of work.

“Part of providing excellent care to your patients is providing excellent supportive care to their families,” Dr. Harry said. “There’s some dissonance there in not being able to allow the family to come visit, but wanting to keep them safe, and it feels really hard to support your patients and support their families in the best way. It can feel like you’re just watching and waiting to see what will happen, and that we don’t have a lot of agency over which direction things take.”

There is concern for health care team members as well, Dr. Harry added. “Physicians care a lot about their teams and how they’re doing. I think there’s a sense of esprit de corps among folks and worry for each other there.”
 

Guilt

Although you may be at the hospital all day, you may feel guilty when you are not providing direct patient care. Or maybe you or someone on your team has an immunodeficiency and can’t be on the front line. Perhaps one of your team members contracted COVID-19 and you did not. Whatever the case, guilt is another emotion that is rampant among hospitalists right now, Dr. Barrett said.

Burnout

Unfortunately, burnout is a potential reality in times of high stress. “Burnout is dynamic,” said Dr. Poorman. “It’s a process by which your emotional and cognitive reserves are exhausted. The people with the highest burnout are the ones who are still trying to provide the standard of care, or above the standard of care in dysfunctional systems.”

Dr. Harry noted that burnout presents in different ways for different people, but Dr. Rudolph added that it’s crucial for hospitalist team members to watch for signs of burnout so they can intervene and/or get help for their colleagues.

Warning signs in yourself or others that burnout could be on the horizon include:

• Fatigue/exhaustion – Whether emotional or physical (or both), this can become a problem if it “just doesn’t seem to go away despite rest and time away from work,” said Dr. Rudolph.
• Behavioral changes – Any behavior that’s out of the ordinary may be a red flag, like lashing out at someone at work.
• Overwork – Working too much can be caused by an inability to let go of patient care, Dr. Barrett said.
• Not working enough – This may include avoiding tasks and having difficulty meeting deadlines.
• Maladaptive coping behaviors – Excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs is a common coping mechanism. “Even excessive consumption of news is something that people are using to numb out a little bit,” said Dr. Harry.
• Depersonalization – “This is where you start to look at patients, colleagues, or administrators as ‘them’ and you can’t connect as deeply,” Dr. Harry said. “Part of that’s protective and a normal thing to do during a big trauma like this, but it’s also incredibly distancing. Any language that people start using that feels like ‘us’ or ‘them’ is a warning sign.”
• Disengagement – Many people disengage from their work, but Dr. Poorman said physicians tend to disengage from other parts of their lives, such as exercise and family interaction.

Protecting yourself while supporting others

Like the illustration of putting the oxygen mask on yourself first so you can help others, it’s important to protect your own mental and physical health as you support your fellow physicians. Here’s what the experts suggest.

Focus on basic needs

“When you’re in the midst of a trauma, which we are, you don’t want to open all of that up and go to the depths of your thoughts about the grief of all of it because it can actually make the trauma worse,” said Dr. Harry. “There’s a lot of literature that debriefing is really helpful after the event, but if you do it during the event, it can be really dangerous.”

Instead, she said, the goal should be focusing on your basic needs and what you need to do to get through each day, like keeping you and your family in good health. “What is your purpose? Staying connected to why you do this and staying focused on the present is really important,” Dr. Harry noted.

Do your best to get a good night’s sleep, exercise as much as you can, talk to others, and see a mental health provider if your anxiety is too high, advises Dr. Barrett. “Even avoiding blue light from phones and screens within 2 hours of bedtime, parking further away from the hospital and walking, and taking the stairs are things that add up in a big way.”
 

Keep up your normal routine

“Right now, it’s really critical for clinicians to keep up components of their routine that feel ‘normal,’ ” Dr. Rudolph said. “Whether it’s exercise, playing board games with their kids, or spending time on a hobby, it’s critical to allow yourself these comfortable, predictable, and rewarding detours.”

Set limits

People under stress tend to find unhealthy ways to cope. Instead, try being intentional about what you are consuming by putting limits on things like your news, alcohol consumption, and the number of hours you work, said Dr. Harry.

Implement a culture of wellness

Dr. Barrett believes in creating the work culture we want to be in, one that ensures people have psychological safety, allows them to ask for help, encourages them to disconnect completely from work, and makes them feel valued and listened to. She likes the example of “the pause,” which is called by a team member right after a patient expires.

“It’s a 30-second moment of silence where we reflect on the patient, their loved ones, and every member of the health care team who helped support and treat them,” said Dr. Barrett. “At the conclusion, you say: ‘Thank you. Is there anything you need to be able to go back to the care of other patients?’ Because it’s unnatural to have this terrible thing that happened and then just act like nothing happened.”
 

Target resources

Be proactive and know where to find resources before you need them, advised Dr. Harry. “Most institutions have free mental health resources, either through their employee assistance programs or HR, plus there’s lots of national organizations that are offering free resources to health care providers.”

Focus on what you can control

Separating what is under your control from what is not is a struggle for everyone, Dr. Poorman said, but it’s helpful to think about the ways you can have an impact and what you’re able to control.

“There was a woman who was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson’s that I heard giving an interview at the beginning of this pandemic,” she said. “It was the most helpful advice I got, which was: ‘Think of the next good thing you can do.’ You can’t fix everything, so what’s the next good thing you can do?”
 

Maintain connectivity

Make sure you are utilizing your support circle and staying connected. “That sense of connection is incredibly protective on multiple fronts for depression, for burnout, for suicide ideation, etc.,” Dr. Harry said.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s your teammates at work, your family at home, your best friend from medical school – whomever you can debrief with, vent with, and just share your thoughts and feelings with, these outlets are critical for all of us to process our emotions and diffuse stress and anxiety,” said Dr. Rudolph.

Dr. Poorman is concerned that there could be a spike in physician suicides caused by increased stress, so she also encourages talking openly about what is going on and about getting help when it’s necessary. “Many of us are afraid to seek care because we can actually have our ability to practice medicine questioned, but now is not the time for heroes. Now is the time for people who are willing to recognize their own strengths and limitations to take care of one another.”
 

Be compassionate toward others

Keep in mind that everyone is stressed out and offer empathy and compassion. “I think everybody’s struggling to try to figure this out and the more that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt and a little grace, the more protective that is,” said Dr. Harry.

Listening is meaningful too. “Recognizing opportunities to validate and acknowledge the feelings that are being shared with you by your colleagues is critical,” Dr. Rudolph said. “We all need to know that we’re not alone, that our thoughts and feelings are okay, and when we share a difficult story, the value of someone saying something as simple as, ‘wow, that sounds like it was really hard,’ is immense.”
 

Be compassionate toward yourself

Try to give yourself a break and be as compassionate with yourself as you would with others. It’s okay that you’re not getting in shape, publishing prolifically, or redesigning your house right now.

“There’s a lot of data linking lack of self-compassion to burnout,” said Dr. Harry. She says there are courses on self-compassion available that help you work on being kinder to yourself.
 

Get a “battle buddy”

The American Medical Association has a free “buddy system” program called PeerRx to help physicians cope during the pandemic. Dr. Rudolph said that now is a great time to use this military-developed intervention in which each team member checks in with a chosen partner at agreed-upon intervals.

For example, “You can tell that person: ‘If I don’t call my family for a week that’s a red flag for me.’ And then you hold each other accountable to those things,” Dr. Harry said.

The buddy system is another way to harness that sense of connection that is so vital to our health and well-being.

“The simple act of showing that you care … can make all the difference when you’re doing this kind of work that is both challenging and dangerous,” said Dr. Rudolph.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has escalated everyone’s stress levels, especially clinicians caring for hospitalized patients. New pressures have added to everyday stress, new studies have revised prior patient care recommendations, and the world generally seems upside down. What can a busy hospitalist do to maintain a modicum of sanity in all the craziness?

The stressors facing hospitalists

Uncertainty

Of all the burdens COVID-19 has unleashed, the biggest may be uncertainty. Not only is there unease about the virus itself, there also is legitimate concern about the future of medicine, said Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and senior director of clinical affairs at the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora.

“What does it look like after an event like this, particularly in areas like academic medicine and teaching our next generation and getting funding for research? And how do we continue to produce physicians that can provide excellent care?” she asked.

There is also uncertainty in the best way to care for patients, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

“There are some models that are emerging to predict who will have a worse outcome, but they’re still not great models, so we have uncertainty for a given patient.” And, she noted, as the science continues to evolve, there exists a constant worry that “you might have inadvertently caused someone harm.”

The financial implications of the pandemic are creating uncertainty too. “When you fund a health care system with elective procedures and you can’t do those, and instead have to shift to the most essential services, a lot of places are seeing a massive deficit, which is going to affect staff morale and some physician offices are going to close,” said Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a primary care and internal medicine physician and chair of the King County Medical Society Physician Wellness Committee in Seattle.
 

Fear

When the pandemic began in the United States, “fear of the unknown was perhaps the scariest part, particularly as it pertained to personal protective equipment,” said Mark Rudolph, MD, SFHM, chief experience officer and vice president of patient experience and physician development at Sound Physicians in Tacoma, Wash. “For most clinicians, this is the first time that they are themselves in harm’s way while they do their jobs. And worse, they risk bringing the virus home to their families. That is the concern I hear most.”

Anxiety

Worrying about being able to provide excellent patient care is a big stressor, especially since this is the heart and soul of why most hospitalists have gone into their line of work.

“Part of providing excellent care to your patients is providing excellent supportive care to their families,” Dr. Harry said. “There’s some dissonance there in not being able to allow the family to come visit, but wanting to keep them safe, and it feels really hard to support your patients and support their families in the best way. It can feel like you’re just watching and waiting to see what will happen, and that we don’t have a lot of agency over which direction things take.”

There is concern for health care team members as well, Dr. Harry added. “Physicians care a lot about their teams and how they’re doing. I think there’s a sense of esprit de corps among folks and worry for each other there.”
 

Guilt

Although you may be at the hospital all day, you may feel guilty when you are not providing direct patient care. Or maybe you or someone on your team has an immunodeficiency and can’t be on the front line. Perhaps one of your team members contracted COVID-19 and you did not. Whatever the case, guilt is another emotion that is rampant among hospitalists right now, Dr. Barrett said.

Burnout

Unfortunately, burnout is a potential reality in times of high stress. “Burnout is dynamic,” said Dr. Poorman. “It’s a process by which your emotional and cognitive reserves are exhausted. The people with the highest burnout are the ones who are still trying to provide the standard of care, or above the standard of care in dysfunctional systems.”

Dr. Harry noted that burnout presents in different ways for different people, but Dr. Rudolph added that it’s crucial for hospitalist team members to watch for signs of burnout so they can intervene and/or get help for their colleagues.

Warning signs in yourself or others that burnout could be on the horizon include:

• Fatigue/exhaustion – Whether emotional or physical (or both), this can become a problem if it “just doesn’t seem to go away despite rest and time away from work,” said Dr. Rudolph.
• Behavioral changes – Any behavior that’s out of the ordinary may be a red flag, like lashing out at someone at work.
• Overwork – Working too much can be caused by an inability to let go of patient care, Dr. Barrett said.
• Not working enough – This may include avoiding tasks and having difficulty meeting deadlines.
• Maladaptive coping behaviors – Excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs is a common coping mechanism. “Even excessive consumption of news is something that people are using to numb out a little bit,” said Dr. Harry.
• Depersonalization – “This is where you start to look at patients, colleagues, or administrators as ‘them’ and you can’t connect as deeply,” Dr. Harry said. “Part of that’s protective and a normal thing to do during a big trauma like this, but it’s also incredibly distancing. Any language that people start using that feels like ‘us’ or ‘them’ is a warning sign.”
• Disengagement – Many people disengage from their work, but Dr. Poorman said physicians tend to disengage from other parts of their lives, such as exercise and family interaction.

Protecting yourself while supporting others

Like the illustration of putting the oxygen mask on yourself first so you can help others, it’s important to protect your own mental and physical health as you support your fellow physicians. Here’s what the experts suggest.

Focus on basic needs

“When you’re in the midst of a trauma, which we are, you don’t want to open all of that up and go to the depths of your thoughts about the grief of all of it because it can actually make the trauma worse,” said Dr. Harry. “There’s a lot of literature that debriefing is really helpful after the event, but if you do it during the event, it can be really dangerous.”

Instead, she said, the goal should be focusing on your basic needs and what you need to do to get through each day, like keeping you and your family in good health. “What is your purpose? Staying connected to why you do this and staying focused on the present is really important,” Dr. Harry noted.

Do your best to get a good night’s sleep, exercise as much as you can, talk to others, and see a mental health provider if your anxiety is too high, advises Dr. Barrett. “Even avoiding blue light from phones and screens within 2 hours of bedtime, parking further away from the hospital and walking, and taking the stairs are things that add up in a big way.”
 

Keep up your normal routine

“Right now, it’s really critical for clinicians to keep up components of their routine that feel ‘normal,’ ” Dr. Rudolph said. “Whether it’s exercise, playing board games with their kids, or spending time on a hobby, it’s critical to allow yourself these comfortable, predictable, and rewarding detours.”

Set limits

People under stress tend to find unhealthy ways to cope. Instead, try being intentional about what you are consuming by putting limits on things like your news, alcohol consumption, and the number of hours you work, said Dr. Harry.

Implement a culture of wellness

Dr. Barrett believes in creating the work culture we want to be in, one that ensures people have psychological safety, allows them to ask for help, encourages them to disconnect completely from work, and makes them feel valued and listened to. She likes the example of “the pause,” which is called by a team member right after a patient expires.

“It’s a 30-second moment of silence where we reflect on the patient, their loved ones, and every member of the health care team who helped support and treat them,” said Dr. Barrett. “At the conclusion, you say: ‘Thank you. Is there anything you need to be able to go back to the care of other patients?’ Because it’s unnatural to have this terrible thing that happened and then just act like nothing happened.”
 

Target resources

Be proactive and know where to find resources before you need them, advised Dr. Harry. “Most institutions have free mental health resources, either through their employee assistance programs or HR, plus there’s lots of national organizations that are offering free resources to health care providers.”

Focus on what you can control

Separating what is under your control from what is not is a struggle for everyone, Dr. Poorman said, but it’s helpful to think about the ways you can have an impact and what you’re able to control.

“There was a woman who was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson’s that I heard giving an interview at the beginning of this pandemic,” she said. “It was the most helpful advice I got, which was: ‘Think of the next good thing you can do.’ You can’t fix everything, so what’s the next good thing you can do?”
 

Maintain connectivity

Make sure you are utilizing your support circle and staying connected. “That sense of connection is incredibly protective on multiple fronts for depression, for burnout, for suicide ideation, etc.,” Dr. Harry said.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s your teammates at work, your family at home, your best friend from medical school – whomever you can debrief with, vent with, and just share your thoughts and feelings with, these outlets are critical for all of us to process our emotions and diffuse stress and anxiety,” said Dr. Rudolph.

Dr. Poorman is concerned that there could be a spike in physician suicides caused by increased stress, so she also encourages talking openly about what is going on and about getting help when it’s necessary. “Many of us are afraid to seek care because we can actually have our ability to practice medicine questioned, but now is not the time for heroes. Now is the time for people who are willing to recognize their own strengths and limitations to take care of one another.”
 

Be compassionate toward others

Keep in mind that everyone is stressed out and offer empathy and compassion. “I think everybody’s struggling to try to figure this out and the more that we can give each other the benefit of the doubt and a little grace, the more protective that is,” said Dr. Harry.

Listening is meaningful too. “Recognizing opportunities to validate and acknowledge the feelings that are being shared with you by your colleagues is critical,” Dr. Rudolph said. “We all need to know that we’re not alone, that our thoughts and feelings are okay, and when we share a difficult story, the value of someone saying something as simple as, ‘wow, that sounds like it was really hard,’ is immense.”
 

Be compassionate toward yourself

Try to give yourself a break and be as compassionate with yourself as you would with others. It’s okay that you’re not getting in shape, publishing prolifically, or redesigning your house right now.

“There’s a lot of data linking lack of self-compassion to burnout,” said Dr. Harry. She says there are courses on self-compassion available that help you work on being kinder to yourself.
 

Get a “battle buddy”

The American Medical Association has a free “buddy system” program called PeerRx to help physicians cope during the pandemic. Dr. Rudolph said that now is a great time to use this military-developed intervention in which each team member checks in with a chosen partner at agreed-upon intervals.

For example, “You can tell that person: ‘If I don’t call my family for a week that’s a red flag for me.’ And then you hold each other accountable to those things,” Dr. Harry said.

The buddy system is another way to harness that sense of connection that is so vital to our health and well-being.

“The simple act of showing that you care … can make all the difference when you’re doing this kind of work that is both challenging and dangerous,” said Dr. Rudolph.

A new analysis of 300 patients with posttraumatic headache confirmed some long-suspected risk factors for persistent headache, including history of medication overuse or psychological symptoms, new parathyroid hormone–associated comorbidities, and history of migraine. It also revealed a surprisingly high frequency of misdiagnosis. The original sample included 500 patients drawn from the Stanford Research Repository Cohort Discovery Tool, but a review found 200 records that were misdiagnosed and had to be excluded.

“It’s very easy to label someone who suffered a head injury and say this is the reason why they have this (headache),” said lead author Tommy Chan, MBBS, a headache fellow in the department of neurology at Stanford (Calif.) University, in an interview. Such patients are often seen by ED or primary care physicians who do not have a lot of experience with posttraumatic headache, and that can lead to negative consequences if a low-pressure headache is mistaken as stemming from a skull fracture. “It’s a very different treatment plan for one versus the other,” said Dr. Chan in an interview.

He noted that it can help to take a patient history that includes the preaccident headache frequency and determine if there was a change in frequency post injury.

Dr. Chan presented the results at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The results are what one might expect, although we haven’t studied it enough to really know. We haven’t systematically characterized these risk factors for chronic posttraumatic headache very well, [so] it’s useful to have this information,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study. However, Dr. Charles emphasized the need to confirm the results prospectively.
 

Defining risk factors

The analysis found that a history of migraines, medication overuse, psychological disorders, and new posttraumatic headache–associated comorbidities were all associated with a greater risk for persistent posttraumatic headache. None of those came as a surprise, “but we live in a world where medicine is practiced based on evidence, and providers want to see data to support that. I think that this will help with resource allocation. It’s important to address [a patient’s] overuse of medications, or if they’re having psychological symptoms,” said Dr. Chan.

A total of 150 patients in the analysis had acute posttraumatic headache (mean duration, 0.7 months) while 150 had persistent posttraumatic headache (mean duration, 24 months; P < .00001). Clinical factors associated with risk of persistent headache included a history migraine (relative risk, 2.4; P < .0001), a previous head injury (odds ratio, 5.8; P < .0001), medication overuse (RR, 2.6; P < .0001), preexisting psychological history (OR, 5; P < .0001), and new posttraumatic headache–associated comorbidities, such as vertigo or posttraumatic stress disorder (RR, 9.8; P < .0001).
 

Identifying patient subgroups

The researchers also identified four subcategories of patients with persistent posttraumatic headache, each with differing risk factors and clinical characteristics. It’s too soon to use these identifiers to make clinical recommendations, but Dr. Chan hopes that further study of these groups will be informative. “It might point us toward (the idea) that each patient population is actually different, even within the chronic persistent posttraumatic headache population, we can’t group them all under the same umbrella term. If we can tease out that a patient has truly had a head injury, but no history of migraine, no overuse of medication, no psychological history, and no other associated symptoms, this would be a very interesting population to study because they would help us understand the pathophysiology [of persistent posttraumatic headache].”

Although the study was conducted by defining persistent posttraumatic headache as lasting at least 3 months, Dr. Chan took issue with that commonly held definition. That choice is arbitrary, with no pathophysiological basis or data to support it, and is based more on clinical trials testing preventative treatments. But when it is used in clinical practice, it can muddy communication with patients. “When this timeline is told to a patient, and when it’s not achieved, they might become disappointed. We should not put too much emphasis on time. Everybody is different,” he said.

The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Chan had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Charles consults for consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

A new analysis of 300 patients with posttraumatic headache confirmed some long-suspected risk factors for persistent headache, including history of medication overuse or psychological symptoms, new parathyroid hormone–associated comorbidities, and history of migraine. It also revealed a surprisingly high frequency of misdiagnosis. The original sample included 500 patients drawn from the Stanford Research Repository Cohort Discovery Tool, but a review found 200 records that were misdiagnosed and had to be excluded.

“It’s very easy to label someone who suffered a head injury and say this is the reason why they have this (headache),” said lead author Tommy Chan, MBBS, a headache fellow in the department of neurology at Stanford (Calif.) University, in an interview. Such patients are often seen by ED or primary care physicians who do not have a lot of experience with posttraumatic headache, and that can lead to negative consequences if a low-pressure headache is mistaken as stemming from a skull fracture. “It’s a very different treatment plan for one versus the other,” said Dr. Chan in an interview.

He noted that it can help to take a patient history that includes the preaccident headache frequency and determine if there was a change in frequency post injury.

Dr. Chan presented the results at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The results are what one might expect, although we haven’t studied it enough to really know. We haven’t systematically characterized these risk factors for chronic posttraumatic headache very well, [so] it’s useful to have this information,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study. However, Dr. Charles emphasized the need to confirm the results prospectively.
 

Defining risk factors

The analysis found that a history of migraines, medication overuse, psychological disorders, and new posttraumatic headache–associated comorbidities were all associated with a greater risk for persistent posttraumatic headache. None of those came as a surprise, “but we live in a world where medicine is practiced based on evidence, and providers want to see data to support that. I think that this will help with resource allocation. It’s important to address [a patient’s] overuse of medications, or if they’re having psychological symptoms,” said Dr. Chan.

A total of 150 patients in the analysis had acute posttraumatic headache (mean duration, 0.7 months) while 150 had persistent posttraumatic headache (mean duration, 24 months; P < .00001). Clinical factors associated with risk of persistent headache included a history migraine (relative risk, 2.4; P < .0001), a previous head injury (odds ratio, 5.8; P < .0001), medication overuse (RR, 2.6; P < .0001), preexisting psychological history (OR, 5; P < .0001), and new posttraumatic headache–associated comorbidities, such as vertigo or posttraumatic stress disorder (RR, 9.8; P < .0001).
 

Identifying patient subgroups

The researchers also identified four subcategories of patients with persistent posttraumatic headache, each with differing risk factors and clinical characteristics. It’s too soon to use these identifiers to make clinical recommendations, but Dr. Chan hopes that further study of these groups will be informative. “It might point us toward (the idea) that each patient population is actually different, even within the chronic persistent posttraumatic headache population, we can’t group them all under the same umbrella term. If we can tease out that a patient has truly had a head injury, but no history of migraine, no overuse of medication, no psychological history, and no other associated symptoms, this would be a very interesting population to study because they would help us understand the pathophysiology [of persistent posttraumatic headache].”

Although the study was conducted by defining persistent posttraumatic headache as lasting at least 3 months, Dr. Chan took issue with that commonly held definition. That choice is arbitrary, with no pathophysiological basis or data to support it, and is based more on clinical trials testing preventative treatments. But when it is used in clinical practice, it can muddy communication with patients. “When this timeline is told to a patient, and when it’s not achieved, they might become disappointed. We should not put too much emphasis on time. Everybody is different,” he said.

The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Chan had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Charles consults for consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

A new analysis of 300 patients with posttraumatic headache confirmed some long-suspected risk factors for persistent headache, including history of medication overuse or psychological symptoms, new parathyroid hormone–associated comorbidities, and history of migraine. It also revealed a surprisingly high frequency of misdiagnosis. The original sample included 500 patients drawn from the Stanford Research Repository Cohort Discovery Tool, but a review found 200 records that were misdiagnosed and had to be excluded.

“It’s very easy to label someone who suffered a head injury and say this is the reason why they have this (headache),” said lead author Tommy Chan, MBBS, a headache fellow in the department of neurology at Stanford (Calif.) University, in an interview. Such patients are often seen by ED or primary care physicians who do not have a lot of experience with posttraumatic headache, and that can lead to negative consequences if a low-pressure headache is mistaken as stemming from a skull fracture. “It’s a very different treatment plan for one versus the other,” said Dr. Chan in an interview.

He noted that it can help to take a patient history that includes the preaccident headache frequency and determine if there was a change in frequency post injury.

Dr. Chan presented the results at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The results are what one might expect, although we haven’t studied it enough to really know. We haven’t systematically characterized these risk factors for chronic posttraumatic headache very well, [so] it’s useful to have this information,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program, who was not involved in the study. However, Dr. Charles emphasized the need to confirm the results prospectively.
 

Defining risk factors

The analysis found that a history of migraines, medication overuse, psychological disorders, and new posttraumatic headache–associated comorbidities were all associated with a greater risk for persistent posttraumatic headache. None of those came as a surprise, “but we live in a world where medicine is practiced based on evidence, and providers want to see data to support that. I think that this will help with resource allocation. It’s important to address [a patient’s] overuse of medications, or if they’re having psychological symptoms,” said Dr. Chan.

A total of 150 patients in the analysis had acute posttraumatic headache (mean duration, 0.7 months) while 150 had persistent posttraumatic headache (mean duration, 24 months; P < .00001). Clinical factors associated with risk of persistent headache included a history migraine (relative risk, 2.4; P < .0001), a previous head injury (odds ratio, 5.8; P < .0001), medication overuse (RR, 2.6; P < .0001), preexisting psychological history (OR, 5; P < .0001), and new posttraumatic headache–associated comorbidities, such as vertigo or posttraumatic stress disorder (RR, 9.8; P < .0001).
 

Identifying patient subgroups

The researchers also identified four subcategories of patients with persistent posttraumatic headache, each with differing risk factors and clinical characteristics. It’s too soon to use these identifiers to make clinical recommendations, but Dr. Chan hopes that further study of these groups will be informative. “It might point us toward (the idea) that each patient population is actually different, even within the chronic persistent posttraumatic headache population, we can’t group them all under the same umbrella term. If we can tease out that a patient has truly had a head injury, but no history of migraine, no overuse of medication, no psychological history, and no other associated symptoms, this would be a very interesting population to study because they would help us understand the pathophysiology [of persistent posttraumatic headache].”

Although the study was conducted by defining persistent posttraumatic headache as lasting at least 3 months, Dr. Chan took issue with that commonly held definition. That choice is arbitrary, with no pathophysiological basis or data to support it, and is based more on clinical trials testing preventative treatments. But when it is used in clinical practice, it can muddy communication with patients. “When this timeline is told to a patient, and when it’s not achieved, they might become disappointed. We should not put too much emphasis on time. Everybody is different,” he said.

The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Chan had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Charles consults for consults for Amgen, BioHaven, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Lundbeck.

Few patients with episodic migraine, and even fewer with chronic migraine, receive optimal treatment, new research shows.

Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.

The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.

“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Ongoing challenges

Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.

Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.

The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.

Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.

In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.

A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.

Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.

Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.

Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.

“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.

Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.

The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.

“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.

“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.

The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Few patients with episodic migraine, and even fewer with chronic migraine, receive optimal treatment, new research shows.

Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.

The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.

“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Ongoing challenges

Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.

Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.

The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.

Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.

In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.

A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.

Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.

Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.

Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.

“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.

Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.

The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.

“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.

“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.

The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Few patients with episodic migraine, and even fewer with chronic migraine, receive optimal treatment, new research shows.

Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.

The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.

“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Ongoing challenges

Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.

Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.

The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.

Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.

In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.

A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.

Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.

Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.

Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.

“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.

Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.

The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.

“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.

“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.

The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

COVID-19 patients with an underlying condition are 6 times as likely to be hospitalized and 12 times as likely to die, compared with those who have no such condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among those with underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, 45.4% of patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized, versus 7.6% of patients without an underlying condition, said Erin K. Stokes, MPH, and associates of the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

The difference in deaths was even greater over the study period of Jan. 22–May 30, 2020: 19.5% of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions died, compared with 1.6% of those with no underlying condition. The gap narrowed, however, for ICU admissions, with corresponding rates of 8.5% and 1.5%, the investigators reported June 15 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be severe, particularly in certain population groups,” they said.

The cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed cases up to May 30, for instance, was nearly twice as high for those aged 80 years and over (902 per 100,000 population) than for those aged 70-79 years (464.2 per 100,000). Those aged 50-59 years had the second-highest incidence, 550.5 per 100,000, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

“Among cases with known race and ethnicity, 33% of persons were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 1.3% were [American Indian/Alaska Native]. These findings suggest that persons in these groups, who account for 18%, 13%, and 0.7% of the U.S. population, respectively, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic,” they wrote.

Another source of disparity: “Incidence among males and females was similar overall, [but] severe outcomes were more commonly reported among males,” the investigators noted. Cumulative incidence was 401.1 per 100,000 for males and 406.0 for females, but 6.0% of male patients died, compared with 4.8% of females.

As of May 30, a total of 1,761,503 cases and 103,700 deaths had been reported to the CDC. Of those cases, approximately 1.3 million were included in the analysis, with data on individual underlying health conditions available for 287,320 (22%). The split on those cases was 198,879 with health conditions and 88,411 without, the CDC data show.

The most frequently reported underlying conditions were cardiovascular disease (32%), diabetes (30%), chronic lung disease (18%), and renal disease (7.6%), and there were no significant differences between males and females, Ms. Stokes and associates said.

The pandemic “is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that continues to affect all populations and result in severe outcomes including death,” they said, emphasizing “the continued need for community mitigation strategies, especially for vulnerable populations, to slow COVID-19 transmission.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stokes EK et al. MMWR. 2020 Jun 15;69(early release):1-7.

Preliminary results from a population-based cohort study support previous reports that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, but further determined that migraine with aura and frequent hospital contacts significantly increased dementia risk after age 60 years, according to results from a Danish registry presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The findings of this study emphasize the need for studies in the migraine-dementia pathophysiology, in particular in migraine cases with aura,” said Sabrina Islamoska, MSc, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of public health at the University of Copenhagen. “This study highlights the importance of monitoring severe migraine to potentially prevent dementia.”
 

A national register-based study

The study used Danish national register–based data from 1988 to 2017 of 1.66 million individuals born between 1935 and 1956, retrieving exposure information until age 59 years and following individuals for dementia after age 60. The matched analysis included 18,135 people registered with migraine before age 59 and 1.38 million without migraine. The matched study population was 62,578.

A diagnosis of dementia or use of dementia medications after age 60 years was the main outcome. Covariates included socioeconomic factors, psychiatric comorbidities and other headache diagnoses.

“To the best of our knowledge, no previous national register–based studies have investigated the risk of dementia among individuals who suffer from migraine with aura,” Dr. Islamoska said.

The preliminary findings revealed that the median age at diagnosis was 49 years and about 70% of the migraine population were women. “There was a 50% higher dementia rate in individuals who had any migraine diagnosis,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“We also found a 20% higher but nonsignificant dementia rate in individuals who had migraine without aura,” she said. However, when the migraine-with-aura population was evaluated, it was found to have a dementia rate two times higher than people with no migraine. “The dementia rate was higher if individuals had more frequent hospital contacts with migraine.”

The findings support the hypothesis that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, she said.

“The findings underline the value of investigating the effect of migraine medications in dementia risk to assess the impact of mild to moderate migraines,” Dr. Islamoska said. “Therefore, the next step is to investigate the risk of dementia among users of migraine medications who are not diagnosed with migraines at hospitals.”

Strengths of the study, Dr. Islamoska noted, were its size and national nature of its population, that it included all migraine diagnoses at hospitals over a 29-year period, that it made adjustments for confounding of well-established dementia risk factors, and that it validated dementia diagnoses after age 60 years.

One limitation was that the study only included hospital-based diagnoses of dementia while 60% of cases in Denmark are undiagnosed, “thus our results only apply to migraine that is severe enough to require a hospital contact,” Dr. Islamoska said, while most migraine cases are treated in the primary care setting.

Also, the young study population may have a lower dementia risk. “We also know that age of migraine registration may not corresponded with the actual onset, since migraine is a complex disorder with individual variation in patient’s burden and course of disease,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“Future studies are needed to understand the pathological mechanisms underlying the relationship between migraine and dementia and to investigate whether proper prophylactic treatment of migraine can potentially prevent dementia,” Dr. Islamoska said. “In addition, when investigating the association between these two prevalent neurological disorders, the timing of migraine diagnosis and dementia onset is important to ensure temporality. We took this into account in our study to strengthen the validity of our results.”
 

‘Surprising’ findings

Andrew Charles, MD, director of the Goldberg Migraine Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Danish study makes an important contribution to the literature on dementia risk factors. “Vanishingly small amounts of attention have been paid to migraine as a potential risk factor,” he said. However, he called the results “surprising” based on his own clinical experience. “I actually had a sense that migraine was somehow protective against Alzheimer’s or other kinds of dementias.”

He questioned if the migraine-dementia link could be a “reporting artifact” of migraine sufferers merely going to the neurologist, raising the likelihood of a positive migraine diagnosis. Nonetheless, the results are “intriguing” and raise important questions about migraine therapy and dementia risk.

“If it holds up, it really is something that behooves us to understand whether intervening in terms of therapy for migraine has even more consequences beyond just the immediate relief of symptoms,” Dr. Charles said. “It’s something we should be thinking about in terms of preventing longer-term consequences of this disorder.”

Dr. Islamoska disclosed that Veluxfondent funded the study as part of her PhD project. Dr. Charles disclosed he is a consultant to Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Islamoska S et al. AHS 2020, Submission 846214.

Preliminary results from a population-based cohort study support previous reports that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, but further determined that migraine with aura and frequent hospital contacts significantly increased dementia risk after age 60 years, according to results from a Danish registry presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The findings of this study emphasize the need for studies in the migraine-dementia pathophysiology, in particular in migraine cases with aura,” said Sabrina Islamoska, MSc, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of public health at the University of Copenhagen. “This study highlights the importance of monitoring severe migraine to potentially prevent dementia.”
 

A national register-based study

The study used Danish national register–based data from 1988 to 2017 of 1.66 million individuals born between 1935 and 1956, retrieving exposure information until age 59 years and following individuals for dementia after age 60. The matched analysis included 18,135 people registered with migraine before age 59 and 1.38 million without migraine. The matched study population was 62,578.

A diagnosis of dementia or use of dementia medications after age 60 years was the main outcome. Covariates included socioeconomic factors, psychiatric comorbidities and other headache diagnoses.

“To the best of our knowledge, no previous national register–based studies have investigated the risk of dementia among individuals who suffer from migraine with aura,” Dr. Islamoska said.

The preliminary findings revealed that the median age at diagnosis was 49 years and about 70% of the migraine population were women. “There was a 50% higher dementia rate in individuals who had any migraine diagnosis,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“We also found a 20% higher but nonsignificant dementia rate in individuals who had migraine without aura,” she said. However, when the migraine-with-aura population was evaluated, it was found to have a dementia rate two times higher than people with no migraine. “The dementia rate was higher if individuals had more frequent hospital contacts with migraine.”

The findings support the hypothesis that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, she said.

“The findings underline the value of investigating the effect of migraine medications in dementia risk to assess the impact of mild to moderate migraines,” Dr. Islamoska said. “Therefore, the next step is to investigate the risk of dementia among users of migraine medications who are not diagnosed with migraines at hospitals.”

Strengths of the study, Dr. Islamoska noted, were its size and national nature of its population, that it included all migraine diagnoses at hospitals over a 29-year period, that it made adjustments for confounding of well-established dementia risk factors, and that it validated dementia diagnoses after age 60 years.

One limitation was that the study only included hospital-based diagnoses of dementia while 60% of cases in Denmark are undiagnosed, “thus our results only apply to migraine that is severe enough to require a hospital contact,” Dr. Islamoska said, while most migraine cases are treated in the primary care setting.

Also, the young study population may have a lower dementia risk. “We also know that age of migraine registration may not corresponded with the actual onset, since migraine is a complex disorder with individual variation in patient’s burden and course of disease,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“Future studies are needed to understand the pathological mechanisms underlying the relationship between migraine and dementia and to investigate whether proper prophylactic treatment of migraine can potentially prevent dementia,” Dr. Islamoska said. “In addition, when investigating the association between these two prevalent neurological disorders, the timing of migraine diagnosis and dementia onset is important to ensure temporality. We took this into account in our study to strengthen the validity of our results.”
 

‘Surprising’ findings

Andrew Charles, MD, director of the Goldberg Migraine Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Danish study makes an important contribution to the literature on dementia risk factors. “Vanishingly small amounts of attention have been paid to migraine as a potential risk factor,” he said. However, he called the results “surprising” based on his own clinical experience. “I actually had a sense that migraine was somehow protective against Alzheimer’s or other kinds of dementias.”

He questioned if the migraine-dementia link could be a “reporting artifact” of migraine sufferers merely going to the neurologist, raising the likelihood of a positive migraine diagnosis. Nonetheless, the results are “intriguing” and raise important questions about migraine therapy and dementia risk.

“If it holds up, it really is something that behooves us to understand whether intervening in terms of therapy for migraine has even more consequences beyond just the immediate relief of symptoms,” Dr. Charles said. “It’s something we should be thinking about in terms of preventing longer-term consequences of this disorder.”

Dr. Islamoska disclosed that Veluxfondent funded the study as part of her PhD project. Dr. Charles disclosed he is a consultant to Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Islamoska S et al. AHS 2020, Submission 846214.

Preliminary results from a population-based cohort study support previous reports that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, but further determined that migraine with aura and frequent hospital contacts significantly increased dementia risk after age 60 years, according to results from a Danish registry presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“The findings of this study emphasize the need for studies in the migraine-dementia pathophysiology, in particular in migraine cases with aura,” said Sabrina Islamoska, MSc, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of public health at the University of Copenhagen. “This study highlights the importance of monitoring severe migraine to potentially prevent dementia.”
 

A national register-based study

The study used Danish national register–based data from 1988 to 2017 of 1.66 million individuals born between 1935 and 1956, retrieving exposure information until age 59 years and following individuals for dementia after age 60. The matched analysis included 18,135 people registered with migraine before age 59 and 1.38 million without migraine. The matched study population was 62,578.

A diagnosis of dementia or use of dementia medications after age 60 years was the main outcome. Covariates included socioeconomic factors, psychiatric comorbidities and other headache diagnoses.

“To the best of our knowledge, no previous national register–based studies have investigated the risk of dementia among individuals who suffer from migraine with aura,” Dr. Islamoska said.

The preliminary findings revealed that the median age at diagnosis was 49 years and about 70% of the migraine population were women. “There was a 50% higher dementia rate in individuals who had any migraine diagnosis,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“We also found a 20% higher but nonsignificant dementia rate in individuals who had migraine without aura,” she said. However, when the migraine-with-aura population was evaluated, it was found to have a dementia rate two times higher than people with no migraine. “The dementia rate was higher if individuals had more frequent hospital contacts with migraine.”

The findings support the hypothesis that migraine is a midlife risk factor for dementia later in life, she said.

“The findings underline the value of investigating the effect of migraine medications in dementia risk to assess the impact of mild to moderate migraines,” Dr. Islamoska said. “Therefore, the next step is to investigate the risk of dementia among users of migraine medications who are not diagnosed with migraines at hospitals.”

Strengths of the study, Dr. Islamoska noted, were its size and national nature of its population, that it included all migraine diagnoses at hospitals over a 29-year period, that it made adjustments for confounding of well-established dementia risk factors, and that it validated dementia diagnoses after age 60 years.

One limitation was that the study only included hospital-based diagnoses of dementia while 60% of cases in Denmark are undiagnosed, “thus our results only apply to migraine that is severe enough to require a hospital contact,” Dr. Islamoska said, while most migraine cases are treated in the primary care setting.

Also, the young study population may have a lower dementia risk. “We also know that age of migraine registration may not corresponded with the actual onset, since migraine is a complex disorder with individual variation in patient’s burden and course of disease,” Dr. Islamoska said.

“Future studies are needed to understand the pathological mechanisms underlying the relationship between migraine and dementia and to investigate whether proper prophylactic treatment of migraine can potentially prevent dementia,” Dr. Islamoska said. “In addition, when investigating the association between these two prevalent neurological disorders, the timing of migraine diagnosis and dementia onset is important to ensure temporality. We took this into account in our study to strengthen the validity of our results.”
 

‘Surprising’ findings

Andrew Charles, MD, director of the Goldberg Migraine Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Danish study makes an important contribution to the literature on dementia risk factors. “Vanishingly small amounts of attention have been paid to migraine as a potential risk factor,” he said. However, he called the results “surprising” based on his own clinical experience. “I actually had a sense that migraine was somehow protective against Alzheimer’s or other kinds of dementias.”

He questioned if the migraine-dementia link could be a “reporting artifact” of migraine sufferers merely going to the neurologist, raising the likelihood of a positive migraine diagnosis. Nonetheless, the results are “intriguing” and raise important questions about migraine therapy and dementia risk.

“If it holds up, it really is something that behooves us to understand whether intervening in terms of therapy for migraine has even more consequences beyond just the immediate relief of symptoms,” Dr. Charles said. “It’s something we should be thinking about in terms of preventing longer-term consequences of this disorder.”

Dr. Islamoska disclosed that Veluxfondent funded the study as part of her PhD project. Dr. Charles disclosed he is a consultant to Amgen, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Islamoska S et al. AHS 2020, Submission 846214.

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

With new daily coronavirus cases rising in at least two dozen states, an explosion of new infections in Arizona is stretching some hospitals and alarming public health experts who link the surge in cases to the state’s lifting of a stay-at-home order a month ago.

Arizona has emerged as one of the country’s newest coronavirus hot spots, with the weekly average of daily cases more than doubling from 2 weeks ago. The total number of people hospitalized is climbing, too.

Over the past week, Arizona has seen an average of more than 1,300 new COVID-19 cases each day.

After the state’s largest hospital system warned about a shortage of ICU beds, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, pushed back on claims that the health care system could soon be overwhelmed.

“The entire time we’ve been focused on a possible worst-case scenario with surge capacity for hospital beds, ICU beds and ventilators,” Ducey told reporters on Thursday. “Those are not needed or necessary right now.”

While he acknowledged a spike in positive cases, Ducey said a second stay-at-home order was “not under discussion.”

“We put the stay-at-home order there so we could prepare for what we are going through,” he said.

Some states have reopened more slowly with a set of specific benchmarks for different regions, but Arizona took a more aggressive approach.

The state began easing restrictions on businesses in early May and lifted its statewide lockdown order after May 15. Under Arizona’s reopening plan, businesses are advised to follow federal guidance on social distancing.

There is also no requirement for everyone to wear masks in public.

Public health experts agree: The timing of this spike reflects the state’s reopening.

“Perhaps, Arizona will be a warning sign to other areas,” said Katherine Ellingson, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona. “We never had that consistent downward trend that would signal it’s time to reopen and we have everything in place to do it safely.”

Before Arizona lifted its stay-at-home order, only about 5% of COVID-19 tests registered as positive. On Monday, that number was around 16%.

A slower reopening gives public health agencies time to identify whether cases are rising and then respond with contact tracing and isolating those who are infected.

“With a fast, rapid reopening, we don’t have the time to mobilize those resources,” said Ellingson.

Maricopa County, home to about 60% of the state’s population, has ramped up contact tracing in recent weeks, but it may not have enough capacity if the surge in cases continues.

Dr. Peter Hotez said the spike in Arizona, as well as in parts of Texas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, is the consequence of removing restrictions too quickly and without a public health system that can keep pace.

“It was just ‘open it up’ and then more or less business as usual, with a little bit of window dressing,” said Hotez, the dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “This is not an abstract number of cases. We’re seeing people pile into intensive care units.”

Arizona’s governor has also faced criticism from the mayors of Arizona’s two biggest cities for not putting in place more stringent requirements.

“There is a pandemic and it’s spreading uncontrollably,” said Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, a Democrat. Ducey, she said, “is just putting up his hands and saying ‘the spread is happening and we just have to go about our business.’”

And the governor’s executive order forbids local governments from implementing their own extra measures, which adds to Romero’s frustration. Texas has a similar measure.

“What he did was pretty much tie the hands of mayors and public health officials,” Romero said.

Arizona’s hospital industry has tried to tamp down fears that it’s on the verge of a crisis. Hospitals are still performing elective surgeries.

“It’s very unfortunate because hospitals right now in Arizona are quite busy with elective procedures,” said Saskia Popescu, a Phoenix-based epidemiologist with George Mason University. “You throw in increasing cases of COVID, and that’s going to very much stress your hospital systems.”

Phoenix’s triple-digit summer temperatures actually may fuel the spread of the virus. People forgo outdoor activities and retreat to air-conditioned indoor spaces, where the risk of transmitting the virus goes up significantly.

“My concern is we’re going to see a lot more people in close quarters for prolonged periods of time,” Popescu said.

Since the stay-at-home order was lifted, Popescu and others say they’ve seen people returning to a pre-pandemic mindset, neglecting to wear masks or maintain social distance. Videos of crowded bars have only propelled these fears.

On Thursday, however, Arizona’s top doctor stressed there were also dangers to keeping the state on lockdown, including the mental health effects of loneliness and isolation.

“We know that it’s in the community. We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we can’t stop living as well,” said Dr. Cara Christ, health director for the Arizona Department of Health Services.

But Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency medicine physician in Mesa, Arizona, said there needs to be more consistent messaging on public health measures like wearing masks.

“Frankly, I just think a wholesale reevaluation of where we’re at is critical right now, but I can tell you that we’re not doing nearly enough,” said Snyder, who has seen the uptick in seriously ill COVID-19 patients firsthand.

“If we continue to head down this path, the virus will press our health care facilities beyond capacity, where we’re going to have to be making tough decisions like who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Most disability accumulation in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) is not associated with overt relapses, challenging the current clinical distinction of relapsing and progressive forms of the disease, a new analysis shows. “We have to abandon the distinction between relapsing and progressive MS being different populations,” said lead author Ludwig Kappos, MD, University of Basel (Switzerland). “The disease appears to be more of a continuum of disability progression, which is sometimes also accompanied by relapses.”

The analysis was published online June 8 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Assessing disability progression

Noting that there are mounting data to suggest patients with relapsing MS frequently experience worsening disability over time – even when relapse activity appears well controlled – the researchers aimed to investigate the relative contributions of progression independent of relapse activity and relapse-associated worsening to overall accumulating disability in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. To do this, they analyzed data from two identical randomized clinical trials (OPERA I and OPERA II) conducted between 2011 and 2015, which compared treatment with the new B-cell–depleting therapy ocrelizumab with interferon beta-1a in 1,656 patients with relapsing MS.

Confirmed disability accumulation was defined by an increase in 1 or more of 3 measures (Expanded Disability Status Scale, timed 25-ft walk, or 9-hole peg test), confirmed after 3 or 6 months, and was classified as being related to a clinical relapse or occurring in the absence of a relapse.

Results showed that after 96 weeks (1.8 years) of treatment, 12-week composite confirmed disability accumulation had occurred in 29.6% of patients receiving interferon beta-1a and 21.1% of those given ocrelizumab; 24-week composite confirmed disability accumulation occurred in 22.7% of interferon beta-1a patients and 16.2% of the ocrelizumab group.

In both treatment groups, the vast majority of events contributing to disability accumulation occurred independently of relapse activity. In the interferon group, 78% of events contributing to 12-week confirmed disability accumulation and 80.6% of events contributing to 24-week confirmed disability accumulation occurred in the absence of clinical relapses, with the corresponding figures in the ocrelizumab group being 88.0% (12 weeks) and 89.1% (24 weeks).

Only a minority of patients (about 17% in both groups) had confirmed disability accumulation accompanied by clinical relapses. Very few patients with confirmed disability accumulation (4% to 5%) experienced disability worsening both associated and independent of relapses. Ocrelizumab was associated with a reduced risk of both relapse-associated and relapse-independent confirmed disability accumulation, compared with interferon beta-1a.

“We found that there was progression of disability in both groups, and the really astonishing finding was that although all patients were classified as having relapsing remitting MS, actually most of the disability progression occurred without preceding relapses,” Dr. Kappos commented. He noted that there have been two previous observational studies that have shown a high rate of disability progressions without temporal association to relapses in relapsing remitting patients, but this is the first time that this progression of disability independent of relapses has been shown in the controlled setting of two prospective, randomized clinical trials over a 2-year period.

“While we expected to see some disability progression independent of relapses, we were surprised to see that the disability progression occurring in both studies was almost exclusively happening without temporal relation to relapses. That was certainly an unexpected finding,” Dr. Kappos said. “These observations make it difficult to keep the current definitions of ‘relapsing remitting’ and ‘secondary progressive’ MS, [ones] that suggest a clear-cut distinction marked by the presence or absence of relapses. This can no longer be justified,” he stressed.

“We are not saying that relapses do not contribute to disability progression. There are a lot of data to support the fact that they do. But I think what we might be seeing is that the drug therapy is quite effective in reducing disability due to relapses but only partially effective in reducing progression independent of relapses,” Dr. Kappos explained.

Although there have been many advances in reducing relapses with drug therapy, focus now needs to shift to the other more continuous process of disability progression independent of relapses, Dr. Kappos said. “There is still a lot of room for improvement here.”

“If continuous progression independent of relapses is already present in the early phases of MS, it is reasonable to study the effects of intervention on steady progression already in this early phase,” he noted. “This might help to capture patients at earlier stages who better respond to treatment aimed at halting progression.”

Dr. Kappos also called for more subtle measurements of disability than the EDSS alone, including measures such as the 9-hole peg test and the 25-ft walk as they did in this analysis. But other measures could also be added that would characterize continuous disease activity and progression, such as laboratory values (e.g., neurofilament light chain) and advanced, more tissue-specific quantitative MRI techniques and digital biomarkers to detect subtle changes in neurologic function.
 

An artificial distinction?

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the experimental therapeutics program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic, said he too sees very little distinction between relapsing remitting and progressive forms of the disease.

“This study confirms what has been suspected for quite a few years –that if one looks sufficiently and carefully, there is gradual worsening of some aspects of the disease in many patients from the earliest stages,” Dr. Cohen said. “Conversely, some patients with progressive MS have superimposed relapses or MRI lesion activity.

“Thus, the distinction between relapsing-remitting and progressive MS subtypes appears artificial,” he concluded.

This study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Kappos has received research support from the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most disability accumulation in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) is not associated with overt relapses, challenging the current clinical distinction of relapsing and progressive forms of the disease, a new analysis shows. “We have to abandon the distinction between relapsing and progressive MS being different populations,” said lead author Ludwig Kappos, MD, University of Basel (Switzerland). “The disease appears to be more of a continuum of disability progression, which is sometimes also accompanied by relapses.”

The analysis was published online June 8 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Assessing disability progression

Noting that there are mounting data to suggest patients with relapsing MS frequently experience worsening disability over time – even when relapse activity appears well controlled – the researchers aimed to investigate the relative contributions of progression independent of relapse activity and relapse-associated worsening to overall accumulating disability in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. To do this, they analyzed data from two identical randomized clinical trials (OPERA I and OPERA II) conducted between 2011 and 2015, which compared treatment with the new B-cell–depleting therapy ocrelizumab with interferon beta-1a in 1,656 patients with relapsing MS.

Confirmed disability accumulation was defined by an increase in 1 or more of 3 measures (Expanded Disability Status Scale, timed 25-ft walk, or 9-hole peg test), confirmed after 3 or 6 months, and was classified as being related to a clinical relapse or occurring in the absence of a relapse.

Results showed that after 96 weeks (1.8 years) of treatment, 12-week composite confirmed disability accumulation had occurred in 29.6% of patients receiving interferon beta-1a and 21.1% of those given ocrelizumab; 24-week composite confirmed disability accumulation occurred in 22.7% of interferon beta-1a patients and 16.2% of the ocrelizumab group.

In both treatment groups, the vast majority of events contributing to disability accumulation occurred independently of relapse activity. In the interferon group, 78% of events contributing to 12-week confirmed disability accumulation and 80.6% of events contributing to 24-week confirmed disability accumulation occurred in the absence of clinical relapses, with the corresponding figures in the ocrelizumab group being 88.0% (12 weeks) and 89.1% (24 weeks).

Only a minority of patients (about 17% in both groups) had confirmed disability accumulation accompanied by clinical relapses. Very few patients with confirmed disability accumulation (4% to 5%) experienced disability worsening both associated and independent of relapses. Ocrelizumab was associated with a reduced risk of both relapse-associated and relapse-independent confirmed disability accumulation, compared with interferon beta-1a.

“We found that there was progression of disability in both groups, and the really astonishing finding was that although all patients were classified as having relapsing remitting MS, actually most of the disability progression occurred without preceding relapses,” Dr. Kappos commented. He noted that there have been two previous observational studies that have shown a high rate of disability progressions without temporal association to relapses in relapsing remitting patients, but this is the first time that this progression of disability independent of relapses has been shown in the controlled setting of two prospective, randomized clinical trials over a 2-year period.

“While we expected to see some disability progression independent of relapses, we were surprised to see that the disability progression occurring in both studies was almost exclusively happening without temporal relation to relapses. That was certainly an unexpected finding,” Dr. Kappos said. “These observations make it difficult to keep the current definitions of ‘relapsing remitting’ and ‘secondary progressive’ MS, [ones] that suggest a clear-cut distinction marked by the presence or absence of relapses. This can no longer be justified,” he stressed.

“We are not saying that relapses do not contribute to disability progression. There are a lot of data to support the fact that they do. But I think what we might be seeing is that the drug therapy is quite effective in reducing disability due to relapses but only partially effective in reducing progression independent of relapses,” Dr. Kappos explained.

Although there have been many advances in reducing relapses with drug therapy, focus now needs to shift to the other more continuous process of disability progression independent of relapses, Dr. Kappos said. “There is still a lot of room for improvement here.”

“If continuous progression independent of relapses is already present in the early phases of MS, it is reasonable to study the effects of intervention on steady progression already in this early phase,” he noted. “This might help to capture patients at earlier stages who better respond to treatment aimed at halting progression.”

Dr. Kappos also called for more subtle measurements of disability than the EDSS alone, including measures such as the 9-hole peg test and the 25-ft walk as they did in this analysis. But other measures could also be added that would characterize continuous disease activity and progression, such as laboratory values (e.g., neurofilament light chain) and advanced, more tissue-specific quantitative MRI techniques and digital biomarkers to detect subtle changes in neurologic function.
 

An artificial distinction?

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the experimental therapeutics program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic, said he too sees very little distinction between relapsing remitting and progressive forms of the disease.

“This study confirms what has been suspected for quite a few years –that if one looks sufficiently and carefully, there is gradual worsening of some aspects of the disease in many patients from the earliest stages,” Dr. Cohen said. “Conversely, some patients with progressive MS have superimposed relapses or MRI lesion activity.

“Thus, the distinction between relapsing-remitting and progressive MS subtypes appears artificial,” he concluded.

This study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Kappos has received research support from the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most disability accumulation in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) is not associated with overt relapses, challenging the current clinical distinction of relapsing and progressive forms of the disease, a new analysis shows. “We have to abandon the distinction between relapsing and progressive MS being different populations,” said lead author Ludwig Kappos, MD, University of Basel (Switzerland). “The disease appears to be more of a continuum of disability progression, which is sometimes also accompanied by relapses.”

The analysis was published online June 8 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Assessing disability progression

Noting that there are mounting data to suggest patients with relapsing MS frequently experience worsening disability over time – even when relapse activity appears well controlled – the researchers aimed to investigate the relative contributions of progression independent of relapse activity and relapse-associated worsening to overall accumulating disability in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. To do this, they analyzed data from two identical randomized clinical trials (OPERA I and OPERA II) conducted between 2011 and 2015, which compared treatment with the new B-cell–depleting therapy ocrelizumab with interferon beta-1a in 1,656 patients with relapsing MS.

Confirmed disability accumulation was defined by an increase in 1 or more of 3 measures (Expanded Disability Status Scale, timed 25-ft walk, or 9-hole peg test), confirmed after 3 or 6 months, and was classified as being related to a clinical relapse or occurring in the absence of a relapse.

Results showed that after 96 weeks (1.8 years) of treatment, 12-week composite confirmed disability accumulation had occurred in 29.6% of patients receiving interferon beta-1a and 21.1% of those given ocrelizumab; 24-week composite confirmed disability accumulation occurred in 22.7% of interferon beta-1a patients and 16.2% of the ocrelizumab group.

In both treatment groups, the vast majority of events contributing to disability accumulation occurred independently of relapse activity. In the interferon group, 78% of events contributing to 12-week confirmed disability accumulation and 80.6% of events contributing to 24-week confirmed disability accumulation occurred in the absence of clinical relapses, with the corresponding figures in the ocrelizumab group being 88.0% (12 weeks) and 89.1% (24 weeks).

Only a minority of patients (about 17% in both groups) had confirmed disability accumulation accompanied by clinical relapses. Very few patients with confirmed disability accumulation (4% to 5%) experienced disability worsening both associated and independent of relapses. Ocrelizumab was associated with a reduced risk of both relapse-associated and relapse-independent confirmed disability accumulation, compared with interferon beta-1a.

“We found that there was progression of disability in both groups, and the really astonishing finding was that although all patients were classified as having relapsing remitting MS, actually most of the disability progression occurred without preceding relapses,” Dr. Kappos commented. He noted that there have been two previous observational studies that have shown a high rate of disability progressions without temporal association to relapses in relapsing remitting patients, but this is the first time that this progression of disability independent of relapses has been shown in the controlled setting of two prospective, randomized clinical trials over a 2-year period.

“While we expected to see some disability progression independent of relapses, we were surprised to see that the disability progression occurring in both studies was almost exclusively happening without temporal relation to relapses. That was certainly an unexpected finding,” Dr. Kappos said. “These observations make it difficult to keep the current definitions of ‘relapsing remitting’ and ‘secondary progressive’ MS, [ones] that suggest a clear-cut distinction marked by the presence or absence of relapses. This can no longer be justified,” he stressed.

“We are not saying that relapses do not contribute to disability progression. There are a lot of data to support the fact that they do. But I think what we might be seeing is that the drug therapy is quite effective in reducing disability due to relapses but only partially effective in reducing progression independent of relapses,” Dr. Kappos explained.

Although there have been many advances in reducing relapses with drug therapy, focus now needs to shift to the other more continuous process of disability progression independent of relapses, Dr. Kappos said. “There is still a lot of room for improvement here.”

“If continuous progression independent of relapses is already present in the early phases of MS, it is reasonable to study the effects of intervention on steady progression already in this early phase,” he noted. “This might help to capture patients at earlier stages who better respond to treatment aimed at halting progression.”

Dr. Kappos also called for more subtle measurements of disability than the EDSS alone, including measures such as the 9-hole peg test and the 25-ft walk as they did in this analysis. But other measures could also be added that would characterize continuous disease activity and progression, such as laboratory values (e.g., neurofilament light chain) and advanced, more tissue-specific quantitative MRI techniques and digital biomarkers to detect subtle changes in neurologic function.
 

An artificial distinction?

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the experimental therapeutics program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic, said he too sees very little distinction between relapsing remitting and progressive forms of the disease.

“This study confirms what has been suspected for quite a few years –that if one looks sufficiently and carefully, there is gradual worsening of some aspects of the disease in many patients from the earliest stages,” Dr. Cohen said. “Conversely, some patients with progressive MS have superimposed relapses or MRI lesion activity.

“Thus, the distinction between relapsing-remitting and progressive MS subtypes appears artificial,” he concluded.

This study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Kappos has received research support from the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.