It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) has recommended new measures designed to avoid topiramate (multiple brands) use during pregnancy.

While it’s well known that topiramate can cause major congenital malformations and fetal growth restriction when used during pregnancy, recent data also suggest a possibly increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders when topiramate is used during pregnancy, the EMA said in a statement. 

The data include two observational studies that showed children born to mothers with epilepsy and who were exposed to topiramate in the womb may have a two- to threefold higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, in particular autism spectrum disorders (ASD), intellectual disability, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compared with children born to mothers with epilepsy not taking antiepileptic medication.

For patients using topiramate for the treatment of epilepsy, the PRAC now recommends that the medicine not be used during pregnancy unless no other suitable treatment is available.

The PRAC had also recommended a pregnancy prevention program to avoid exposure of the developing fetus to topiramate. “These measures will inform any woman or girl who is able to have children of the risks of taking topiramate during pregnancy and the need to avoid becoming pregnant while taking topiramate,” the EMA said.

Regardless of indication, the agency said topiramate should be used in women of childbearing age only when the following conditions of the pregnancy prevention program are met:

• A pregnancy test before starting treatment.
• Counseling about the risks of topiramate treatment and the need for highly effective contraception throughout treatment.
• A review of ongoing treatment at least annually by completion of a risk awareness form.

The PRAC recommends that health care professionals ensure women of childbearing age are fully aware of the risks of taking topiramate during pregnancy. The committee noted that alternative treatment options should be considered and the need for topiramate treatment should be reassessed at least annually.

The product information for topiramate-containing medicines will be updated to further highlight the risks for neurodevelopmental disorders and the additional safety measures to be taken.

Patients and health care professionals will be provided with educational materials regarding the risks of using topiramate during pregnancy, and a patient card will be provided to the patient with each medicine package. A visible warning will also be added to the outer packaging of the medicine.

The new PRAC recommendations will be sent to the Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human (CMDh), which will adopt a position.
 

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

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) has recommended new measures designed to avoid topiramate (multiple brands) use during pregnancy.

While it’s well known that topiramate can cause major congenital malformations and fetal growth restriction when used during pregnancy, recent data also suggest a possibly increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders when topiramate is used during pregnancy, the EMA said in a statement. 

The data include two observational studies that showed children born to mothers with epilepsy and who were exposed to topiramate in the womb may have a two- to threefold higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, in particular autism spectrum disorders (ASD), intellectual disability, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compared with children born to mothers with epilepsy not taking antiepileptic medication.

For patients using topiramate for the treatment of epilepsy, the PRAC now recommends that the medicine not be used during pregnancy unless no other suitable treatment is available.

The PRAC had also recommended a pregnancy prevention program to avoid exposure of the developing fetus to topiramate. “These measures will inform any woman or girl who is able to have children of the risks of taking topiramate during pregnancy and the need to avoid becoming pregnant while taking topiramate,” the EMA said.

Regardless of indication, the agency said topiramate should be used in women of childbearing age only when the following conditions of the pregnancy prevention program are met:

• A pregnancy test before starting treatment.
• Counseling about the risks of topiramate treatment and the need for highly effective contraception throughout treatment.
• A review of ongoing treatment at least annually by completion of a risk awareness form.

The PRAC recommends that health care professionals ensure women of childbearing age are fully aware of the risks of taking topiramate during pregnancy. The committee noted that alternative treatment options should be considered and the need for topiramate treatment should be reassessed at least annually.

The product information for topiramate-containing medicines will be updated to further highlight the risks for neurodevelopmental disorders and the additional safety measures to be taken.

Patients and health care professionals will be provided with educational materials regarding the risks of using topiramate during pregnancy, and a patient card will be provided to the patient with each medicine package. A visible warning will also be added to the outer packaging of the medicine.

The new PRAC recommendations will be sent to the Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human (CMDh), which will adopt a position.
 

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

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) has recommended new measures designed to avoid topiramate (multiple brands) use during pregnancy.

While it’s well known that topiramate can cause major congenital malformations and fetal growth restriction when used during pregnancy, recent data also suggest a possibly increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders when topiramate is used during pregnancy, the EMA said in a statement. 

The data include two observational studies that showed children born to mothers with epilepsy and who were exposed to topiramate in the womb may have a two- to threefold higher risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, in particular autism spectrum disorders (ASD), intellectual disability, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compared with children born to mothers with epilepsy not taking antiepileptic medication.

For patients using topiramate for the treatment of epilepsy, the PRAC now recommends that the medicine not be used during pregnancy unless no other suitable treatment is available.

The PRAC had also recommended a pregnancy prevention program to avoid exposure of the developing fetus to topiramate. “These measures will inform any woman or girl who is able to have children of the risks of taking topiramate during pregnancy and the need to avoid becoming pregnant while taking topiramate,” the EMA said.

Regardless of indication, the agency said topiramate should be used in women of childbearing age only when the following conditions of the pregnancy prevention program are met:

• A pregnancy test before starting treatment.
• Counseling about the risks of topiramate treatment and the need for highly effective contraception throughout treatment.
• A review of ongoing treatment at least annually by completion of a risk awareness form.

The PRAC recommends that health care professionals ensure women of childbearing age are fully aware of the risks of taking topiramate during pregnancy. The committee noted that alternative treatment options should be considered and the need for topiramate treatment should be reassessed at least annually.

The product information for topiramate-containing medicines will be updated to further highlight the risks for neurodevelopmental disorders and the additional safety measures to be taken.

Patients and health care professionals will be provided with educational materials regarding the risks of using topiramate during pregnancy, and a patient card will be provided to the patient with each medicine package. A visible warning will also be added to the outer packaging of the medicine.

The new PRAC recommendations will be sent to the Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human (CMDh), which will adopt a position.
 

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

INTRODUCTION

Leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) is an extremely rare complication of gastroesophageal (GE) cancer. Diagnosis is challenging due to frequently nonspecific clinical presentations, limited sensitivity of diagnostic testing, and potential overlap with neurologic immune-related adverse events (irAE). We describe a case of metastatic gastroesophageal cancer on immunotherapy presenting with LM masquerading as polyneuropathy.

CASE REPORT

A 74-year-old male with HER2+ GE junction cancer with peritoneal metastases diagnosed 6 months ago, on maintenance trastuzumab/pembrolizumab and with no previous history of cranial or spinal disease, presented with worsening ataxia, headache, and diplopia for one month with multiple negative outpatient MRIs. Examination showed left abducens nerve palsy, dysmetria and absent deep tendon reflexes in upper and lower extremities. CT head was unremarkable, and MRI showed non-specific mild enhancement of the right optic nerve, symmetrical lumbosacral nerve roots and cauda equina concerning for paraneoplastic versus immunotherapy-related polyneuropathy. He was started on empiric high-dose corticosteroids. PET-CT was negative for FDG-avid lesions. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis revealed moderate pleocytosis with many large atypical cells, elevated protein (118 mg/dL) and LDH (28 IU/L). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CDX2, CA 19-9, CK7, and pankeratin, consistent with metastatic adenocarcinoma, negative for HER2 in contrast to the original tumor. He subsequently developed hydrocephalus requiring a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. He received ten fractions of whole brain irradiation before electing to pursue hospice care.

DISCUSSION

LM is an extremely rare complication of GE cancer with an incidence of <0.2% and carries a poor prognosis. Differentiation between LM and irAE in patients on immunotherapy can be challenging. Diagnosis relies mostly on CSF cytology, and lumbar puncture should not be delayed in patients with new neurologic symptoms. Treatment options are intrathecal chemotherapy, radiation and steroids. A recent phase II trial has shown promise for intrathecal trastuzumab in patients with HER2+ cancers, but options for HER2 negative disease remain mostly palliative.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case highlights the need for suspecting this rare metastatic site, as early diagnosis and genetic characterization allow for exploring more treatment options including targeted therapies which may improve overall survival and quality of life.

INTRODUCTION

Leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) is an extremely rare complication of gastroesophageal (GE) cancer. Diagnosis is challenging due to frequently nonspecific clinical presentations, limited sensitivity of diagnostic testing, and potential overlap with neurologic immune-related adverse events (irAE). We describe a case of metastatic gastroesophageal cancer on immunotherapy presenting with LM masquerading as polyneuropathy.

CASE REPORT

A 74-year-old male with HER2+ GE junction cancer with peritoneal metastases diagnosed 6 months ago, on maintenance trastuzumab/pembrolizumab and with no previous history of cranial or spinal disease, presented with worsening ataxia, headache, and diplopia for one month with multiple negative outpatient MRIs. Examination showed left abducens nerve palsy, dysmetria and absent deep tendon reflexes in upper and lower extremities. CT head was unremarkable, and MRI showed non-specific mild enhancement of the right optic nerve, symmetrical lumbosacral nerve roots and cauda equina concerning for paraneoplastic versus immunotherapy-related polyneuropathy. He was started on empiric high-dose corticosteroids. PET-CT was negative for FDG-avid lesions. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis revealed moderate pleocytosis with many large atypical cells, elevated protein (118 mg/dL) and LDH (28 IU/L). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CDX2, CA 19-9, CK7, and pankeratin, consistent with metastatic adenocarcinoma, negative for HER2 in contrast to the original tumor. He subsequently developed hydrocephalus requiring a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. He received ten fractions of whole brain irradiation before electing to pursue hospice care.

DISCUSSION

LM is an extremely rare complication of GE cancer with an incidence of <0.2% and carries a poor prognosis. Differentiation between LM and irAE in patients on immunotherapy can be challenging. Diagnosis relies mostly on CSF cytology, and lumbar puncture should not be delayed in patients with new neurologic symptoms. Treatment options are intrathecal chemotherapy, radiation and steroids. A recent phase II trial has shown promise for intrathecal trastuzumab in patients with HER2+ cancers, but options for HER2 negative disease remain mostly palliative.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case highlights the need for suspecting this rare metastatic site, as early diagnosis and genetic characterization allow for exploring more treatment options including targeted therapies which may improve overall survival and quality of life.

INTRODUCTION

Leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) is an extremely rare complication of gastroesophageal (GE) cancer. Diagnosis is challenging due to frequently nonspecific clinical presentations, limited sensitivity of diagnostic testing, and potential overlap with neurologic immune-related adverse events (irAE). We describe a case of metastatic gastroesophageal cancer on immunotherapy presenting with LM masquerading as polyneuropathy.

CASE REPORT

A 74-year-old male with HER2+ GE junction cancer with peritoneal metastases diagnosed 6 months ago, on maintenance trastuzumab/pembrolizumab and with no previous history of cranial or spinal disease, presented with worsening ataxia, headache, and diplopia for one month with multiple negative outpatient MRIs. Examination showed left abducens nerve palsy, dysmetria and absent deep tendon reflexes in upper and lower extremities. CT head was unremarkable, and MRI showed non-specific mild enhancement of the right optic nerve, symmetrical lumbosacral nerve roots and cauda equina concerning for paraneoplastic versus immunotherapy-related polyneuropathy. He was started on empiric high-dose corticosteroids. PET-CT was negative for FDG-avid lesions. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis revealed moderate pleocytosis with many large atypical cells, elevated protein (118 mg/dL) and LDH (28 IU/L). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CDX2, CA 19-9, CK7, and pankeratin, consistent with metastatic adenocarcinoma, negative for HER2 in contrast to the original tumor. He subsequently developed hydrocephalus requiring a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. He received ten fractions of whole brain irradiation before electing to pursue hospice care.

DISCUSSION

LM is an extremely rare complication of GE cancer with an incidence of <0.2% and carries a poor prognosis. Differentiation between LM and irAE in patients on immunotherapy can be challenging. Diagnosis relies mostly on CSF cytology, and lumbar puncture should not be delayed in patients with new neurologic symptoms. Treatment options are intrathecal chemotherapy, radiation and steroids. A recent phase II trial has shown promise for intrathecal trastuzumab in patients with HER2+ cancers, but options for HER2 negative disease remain mostly palliative.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case highlights the need for suspecting this rare metastatic site, as early diagnosis and genetic characterization allow for exploring more treatment options including targeted therapies which may improve overall survival and quality of life.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aims to enhance the rate of germline genetic testing for prostate cancer at the Stratton VA Medical Center, improving risk reduction strategies and therapeutic options for patients.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is prevalent at the Stratton VA Medical Center, yet the rate of genetic evaluation for prostate cancer remains suboptimal. National guidelines recommend genetic counseling and testing in specific patient populations. To address this gap, an interdisciplinary working group conducted gap analysis and root cause analysis, identifying four significant barriers.

METHODS 

The working group comprised medical oncologists, urologists, primary care physicians, genetics counselors, data experts, and a LEAN coach. Interventions included implementing a prostate cancer pathway to educate staff on genetic testing indications and integrating genetic testing screening into clinic visits. After the interventions were implemented in January 2022, patient charts were reviewed for all genetic referrals and new prostate cancer diagnoses from January to December 2022.

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive analysis was conducted on referral rates, evaluation visit completion rates, and genetic testing outcomes among prostate cancer patients.

RESULTS

During the study period, 59 prostate cancer patients were referred for genetic evaluation. Notably, this was a large increase from no genetic referrals for prostate cancer in the previous year. Among them, 43 completed the evaluation visit, and 34 underwent genetic testing. Noteworthy findings were observed in 5 patients, including 3 variants of unknown significance and 2 pathogenic germline variants: HOXB13 and BRCA2 mutations.

IMPLICATIONS

This project highlights the power of a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to overcome barriers and enhance the quality of care for prostate cancer patients. The team’s use of gap analysis and root cause analysis successfully identified barriers and proposed solutions, leading to increased referrals and the identification of significant genetic findings. Continued efforts to improve access to germline genetic testing are crucial for enhanced patient care and improved outcomes.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aims to enhance the rate of germline genetic testing for prostate cancer at the Stratton VA Medical Center, improving risk reduction strategies and therapeutic options for patients.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is prevalent at the Stratton VA Medical Center, yet the rate of genetic evaluation for prostate cancer remains suboptimal. National guidelines recommend genetic counseling and testing in specific patient populations. To address this gap, an interdisciplinary working group conducted gap analysis and root cause analysis, identifying four significant barriers.

METHODS 

The working group comprised medical oncologists, urologists, primary care physicians, genetics counselors, data experts, and a LEAN coach. Interventions included implementing a prostate cancer pathway to educate staff on genetic testing indications and integrating genetic testing screening into clinic visits. After the interventions were implemented in January 2022, patient charts were reviewed for all genetic referrals and new prostate cancer diagnoses from January to December 2022.

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive analysis was conducted on referral rates, evaluation visit completion rates, and genetic testing outcomes among prostate cancer patients.

RESULTS

During the study period, 59 prostate cancer patients were referred for genetic evaluation. Notably, this was a large increase from no genetic referrals for prostate cancer in the previous year. Among them, 43 completed the evaluation visit, and 34 underwent genetic testing. Noteworthy findings were observed in 5 patients, including 3 variants of unknown significance and 2 pathogenic germline variants: HOXB13 and BRCA2 mutations.

IMPLICATIONS

This project highlights the power of a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to overcome barriers and enhance the quality of care for prostate cancer patients. The team’s use of gap analysis and root cause analysis successfully identified barriers and proposed solutions, leading to increased referrals and the identification of significant genetic findings. Continued efforts to improve access to germline genetic testing are crucial for enhanced patient care and improved outcomes.

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project aims to enhance the rate of germline genetic testing for prostate cancer at the Stratton VA Medical Center, improving risk reduction strategies and therapeutic options for patients.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is prevalent at the Stratton VA Medical Center, yet the rate of genetic evaluation for prostate cancer remains suboptimal. National guidelines recommend genetic counseling and testing in specific patient populations. To address this gap, an interdisciplinary working group conducted gap analysis and root cause analysis, identifying four significant barriers.

METHODS 

The working group comprised medical oncologists, urologists, primary care physicians, genetics counselors, data experts, and a LEAN coach. Interventions included implementing a prostate cancer pathway to educate staff on genetic testing indications and integrating genetic testing screening into clinic visits. After the interventions were implemented in January 2022, patient charts were reviewed for all genetic referrals and new prostate cancer diagnoses from January to December 2022.

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive analysis was conducted on referral rates, evaluation visit completion rates, and genetic testing outcomes among prostate cancer patients.

RESULTS

During the study period, 59 prostate cancer patients were referred for genetic evaluation. Notably, this was a large increase from no genetic referrals for prostate cancer in the previous year. Among them, 43 completed the evaluation visit, and 34 underwent genetic testing. Noteworthy findings were observed in 5 patients, including 3 variants of unknown significance and 2 pathogenic germline variants: HOXB13 and BRCA2 mutations.

IMPLICATIONS

This project highlights the power of a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to overcome barriers and enhance the quality of care for prostate cancer patients. The team’s use of gap analysis and root cause analysis successfully identified barriers and proposed solutions, leading to increased referrals and the identification of significant genetic findings. Continued efforts to improve access to germline genetic testing are crucial for enhanced patient care and improved outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

Excluding skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common malignancy affecting men in the United States, accounting for ~33% of VA cancer cases. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered standard of care in treating advanced prostate cancer. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare and morbid adverse event associated with GnRH agonist treatment. We describe a patient with advanced prostate cancer who developed pituitary apoplexy shortly after leuprolide therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 70-year-old African-American male was diagnosed with a T2aN1M1 stage IVB prostate cancer, Gleason 4+5, PSA 19.5. Four hours after his first leuprolide injection, he developed vomiting, diaphoresis, myalgia, and a severe frontal headache. Brain MRI revealed a 2.4 × 1.3 × 1.3cm pituitary mass, suspicious for an adenoma with hemorrhage. Labs noted low TSH, prolactin, LH, growth hormone, ACTH, cortisol, and testosterone, consistent with pituitary apoplexy. He was treated with steroids. Three weeks later, testosterone levels remained very low. He started abiraterone and prednisone without further leuprolide.

DISCUSSION

Prostate cancer is ubiquitous among VA patients, and ADT with GnRH agonist is vital in their care. These medications stimulate the pituitary to release LH and FSH resulting in a negative feedback loop, ultimately decreasing the levels of testosterone. Common side effects of GnRH agonists include hot flashes, diaphoresis, and sexual dysfunction. We present a patient who started leuprolide for prostate cancer. Symptoms including a severe headache led to an evaluation confirming pituitary apoplexy. Literature review reveals ~ 21 cases of pituitary apoplexy associated with GnRH agonist treatment for prostate cancer, and apoplexy can occur immediately to months later Undiagnosed pituitary adenomas are common among these patients. Treatment includes pituitary surgery or conservative management. Further prostate cancer treatment needs investigation, but we propose that GnRH modifying treatment can be withheld while testosterone levels remain low.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer is extremely common in the VA population, and treatment with leuprolide is standard. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare, but devastating complication of this treatment, and providers should be aware of the symptoms in order to intervene quickly. Further testosterone lowering treatment may be withheld if testosterone levels remain low.

INTRODUCTION

Excluding skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common malignancy affecting men in the United States, accounting for ~33% of VA cancer cases. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered standard of care in treating advanced prostate cancer. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare and morbid adverse event associated with GnRH agonist treatment. We describe a patient with advanced prostate cancer who developed pituitary apoplexy shortly after leuprolide therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 70-year-old African-American male was diagnosed with a T2aN1M1 stage IVB prostate cancer, Gleason 4+5, PSA 19.5. Four hours after his first leuprolide injection, he developed vomiting, diaphoresis, myalgia, and a severe frontal headache. Brain MRI revealed a 2.4 × 1.3 × 1.3cm pituitary mass, suspicious for an adenoma with hemorrhage. Labs noted low TSH, prolactin, LH, growth hormone, ACTH, cortisol, and testosterone, consistent with pituitary apoplexy. He was treated with steroids. Three weeks later, testosterone levels remained very low. He started abiraterone and prednisone without further leuprolide.

DISCUSSION

Prostate cancer is ubiquitous among VA patients, and ADT with GnRH agonist is vital in their care. These medications stimulate the pituitary to release LH and FSH resulting in a negative feedback loop, ultimately decreasing the levels of testosterone. Common side effects of GnRH agonists include hot flashes, diaphoresis, and sexual dysfunction. We present a patient who started leuprolide for prostate cancer. Symptoms including a severe headache led to an evaluation confirming pituitary apoplexy. Literature review reveals ~ 21 cases of pituitary apoplexy associated with GnRH agonist treatment for prostate cancer, and apoplexy can occur immediately to months later Undiagnosed pituitary adenomas are common among these patients. Treatment includes pituitary surgery or conservative management. Further prostate cancer treatment needs investigation, but we propose that GnRH modifying treatment can be withheld while testosterone levels remain low.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer is extremely common in the VA population, and treatment with leuprolide is standard. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare, but devastating complication of this treatment, and providers should be aware of the symptoms in order to intervene quickly. Further testosterone lowering treatment may be withheld if testosterone levels remain low.

INTRODUCTION

Excluding skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common malignancy affecting men in the United States, accounting for ~33% of VA cancer cases. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered standard of care in treating advanced prostate cancer. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare and morbid adverse event associated with GnRH agonist treatment. We describe a patient with advanced prostate cancer who developed pituitary apoplexy shortly after leuprolide therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 70-year-old African-American male was diagnosed with a T2aN1M1 stage IVB prostate cancer, Gleason 4+5, PSA 19.5. Four hours after his first leuprolide injection, he developed vomiting, diaphoresis, myalgia, and a severe frontal headache. Brain MRI revealed a 2.4 × 1.3 × 1.3cm pituitary mass, suspicious for an adenoma with hemorrhage. Labs noted low TSH, prolactin, LH, growth hormone, ACTH, cortisol, and testosterone, consistent with pituitary apoplexy. He was treated with steroids. Three weeks later, testosterone levels remained very low. He started abiraterone and prednisone without further leuprolide.

DISCUSSION

Prostate cancer is ubiquitous among VA patients, and ADT with GnRH agonist is vital in their care. These medications stimulate the pituitary to release LH and FSH resulting in a negative feedback loop, ultimately decreasing the levels of testosterone. Common side effects of GnRH agonists include hot flashes, diaphoresis, and sexual dysfunction. We present a patient who started leuprolide for prostate cancer. Symptoms including a severe headache led to an evaluation confirming pituitary apoplexy. Literature review reveals ~ 21 cases of pituitary apoplexy associated with GnRH agonist treatment for prostate cancer, and apoplexy can occur immediately to months later Undiagnosed pituitary adenomas are common among these patients. Treatment includes pituitary surgery or conservative management. Further prostate cancer treatment needs investigation, but we propose that GnRH modifying treatment can be withheld while testosterone levels remain low.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer is extremely common in the VA population, and treatment with leuprolide is standard. Pituitary apoplexy is a rare, but devastating complication of this treatment, and providers should be aware of the symptoms in order to intervene quickly. Further testosterone lowering treatment may be withheld if testosterone levels remain low.

TOPLINE:

Results of a national survey show that despite a lack of data, many adults in the United States believe daily use of cannabis is safer than tobacco, a trend that’s growing over time.

METHODOLOGY:

• While aggressive campaigns have led to a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of cigarette smoking and created safer smoke-free environments, regulation governing cannabis – which is associated with some health benefits but also many negative health outcomes – has been less restrictive.
• The study included a nationally representative sample of 5,035 mostly White U.S. adults, mean age 53.4 years, who completed three online surveys between 2017 and 2021 on the safety of tobacco and cannabis.
• In all three waves of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the safety of smoking one marijuana joint a day to smoking one cigarette a day, and of secondhand smoke from marijuana to that from tobacco.
• Respondents also expressed views on the safety of secondhand smoke exposure (of both marijuana and tobacco) on specific populations, including children, pregnant women, and adults (ratings were from “completely unsafe” to “completely safe”).
• Independent variables included age, sex, race, ethnicity, education level, annual income, employment status, marital status, and state of residence.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a significant shift over time toward an increasingly favorable perception of cannabis; more respondents reported cannabis was “somewhat safer” or “much safer” than tobacco in 2021 than 2017 (44.3% vs. 36.7%; P < .001), and more believed secondhand smoke was somewhat or much safer for cannabis vs. tobacco in 2021 than in 2017 (40.2% vs. 35.1%; P < .001).
• More people endorsed the greater safety of secondhand smoke from cannabis vs. tobacco for children and pregnant women, and these perceptions remained similar over the study period.
• Younger and unmarried individuals were significantly more likely to move toward viewing smoking cannabis as safer than cigarettes, but legality of cannabis in respondents’ state of residence was not associated with change over time, suggesting the increasing perception of cannabis safety may be a national trend rather than a trend seen only in states with legalized cannabis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding changing views on tobacco and cannabis risk is important given that increases in social acceptance and decreases in risk perception may be directly associated with public health and policies,” the investigators write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Julia Chambers, MD, department of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The generalizability of the study may be limited by nonresponse and loss to follow-up over time. The wording of survey questions may have introduced bias in respondents. Participants were asked about safety of smoking cannabis joints vs. tobacco cigarettes and not to compare safety of other forms of smoked and vaped cannabis, tobacco, and nicotine.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program. Dr. Chambers has no relevant conflicts of interest; author Katherine J. Hoggatt, PhD, MPH, department of medicine, UCSF, reported receiving grants from the Veterans Health Administration during the conduct of the study and grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rubin Family Foundation, and Veterans Health Administration outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Results of a national survey show that despite a lack of data, many adults in the United States believe daily use of cannabis is safer than tobacco, a trend that’s growing over time.

METHODOLOGY:

• While aggressive campaigns have led to a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of cigarette smoking and created safer smoke-free environments, regulation governing cannabis – which is associated with some health benefits but also many negative health outcomes – has been less restrictive.
• The study included a nationally representative sample of 5,035 mostly White U.S. adults, mean age 53.4 years, who completed three online surveys between 2017 and 2021 on the safety of tobacco and cannabis.
• In all three waves of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the safety of smoking one marijuana joint a day to smoking one cigarette a day, and of secondhand smoke from marijuana to that from tobacco.
• Respondents also expressed views on the safety of secondhand smoke exposure (of both marijuana and tobacco) on specific populations, including children, pregnant women, and adults (ratings were from “completely unsafe” to “completely safe”).
• Independent variables included age, sex, race, ethnicity, education level, annual income, employment status, marital status, and state of residence.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a significant shift over time toward an increasingly favorable perception of cannabis; more respondents reported cannabis was “somewhat safer” or “much safer” than tobacco in 2021 than 2017 (44.3% vs. 36.7%; P < .001), and more believed secondhand smoke was somewhat or much safer for cannabis vs. tobacco in 2021 than in 2017 (40.2% vs. 35.1%; P < .001).
• More people endorsed the greater safety of secondhand smoke from cannabis vs. tobacco for children and pregnant women, and these perceptions remained similar over the study period.
• Younger and unmarried individuals were significantly more likely to move toward viewing smoking cannabis as safer than cigarettes, but legality of cannabis in respondents’ state of residence was not associated with change over time, suggesting the increasing perception of cannabis safety may be a national trend rather than a trend seen only in states with legalized cannabis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding changing views on tobacco and cannabis risk is important given that increases in social acceptance and decreases in risk perception may be directly associated with public health and policies,” the investigators write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Julia Chambers, MD, department of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The generalizability of the study may be limited by nonresponse and loss to follow-up over time. The wording of survey questions may have introduced bias in respondents. Participants were asked about safety of smoking cannabis joints vs. tobacco cigarettes and not to compare safety of other forms of smoked and vaped cannabis, tobacco, and nicotine.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program. Dr. Chambers has no relevant conflicts of interest; author Katherine J. Hoggatt, PhD, MPH, department of medicine, UCSF, reported receiving grants from the Veterans Health Administration during the conduct of the study and grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rubin Family Foundation, and Veterans Health Administration outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Results of a national survey show that despite a lack of data, many adults in the United States believe daily use of cannabis is safer than tobacco, a trend that’s growing over time.

METHODOLOGY:

• While aggressive campaigns have led to a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of cigarette smoking and created safer smoke-free environments, regulation governing cannabis – which is associated with some health benefits but also many negative health outcomes – has been less restrictive.
• The study included a nationally representative sample of 5,035 mostly White U.S. adults, mean age 53.4 years, who completed three online surveys between 2017 and 2021 on the safety of tobacco and cannabis.
• In all three waves of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the safety of smoking one marijuana joint a day to smoking one cigarette a day, and of secondhand smoke from marijuana to that from tobacco.
• Respondents also expressed views on the safety of secondhand smoke exposure (of both marijuana and tobacco) on specific populations, including children, pregnant women, and adults (ratings were from “completely unsafe” to “completely safe”).
• Independent variables included age, sex, race, ethnicity, education level, annual income, employment status, marital status, and state of residence.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a significant shift over time toward an increasingly favorable perception of cannabis; more respondents reported cannabis was “somewhat safer” or “much safer” than tobacco in 2021 than 2017 (44.3% vs. 36.7%; P < .001), and more believed secondhand smoke was somewhat or much safer for cannabis vs. tobacco in 2021 than in 2017 (40.2% vs. 35.1%; P < .001).
• More people endorsed the greater safety of secondhand smoke from cannabis vs. tobacco for children and pregnant women, and these perceptions remained similar over the study period.
• Younger and unmarried individuals were significantly more likely to move toward viewing smoking cannabis as safer than cigarettes, but legality of cannabis in respondents’ state of residence was not associated with change over time, suggesting the increasing perception of cannabis safety may be a national trend rather than a trend seen only in states with legalized cannabis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding changing views on tobacco and cannabis risk is important given that increases in social acceptance and decreases in risk perception may be directly associated with public health and policies,” the investigators write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Julia Chambers, MD, department of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The generalizability of the study may be limited by nonresponse and loss to follow-up over time. The wording of survey questions may have introduced bias in respondents. Participants were asked about safety of smoking cannabis joints vs. tobacco cigarettes and not to compare safety of other forms of smoked and vaped cannabis, tobacco, and nicotine.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program. Dr. Chambers has no relevant conflicts of interest; author Katherine J. Hoggatt, PhD, MPH, department of medicine, UCSF, reported receiving grants from the Veterans Health Administration during the conduct of the study and grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rubin Family Foundation, and Veterans Health Administration outside the submitted work.

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

An increase in cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in Florida and Georgia signals that RSV season has begun. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a national alert to health officials Sept. 5, urging them to offer new medicines that can prevent severe cases of the respiratory virus in very young children and in older people. Those two groups are at the highest risk of potentially deadly complications from RSV.

Typically, the CDC considers the start of RSV season to occur when the rate of positive tests for the virus goes above 3% for 2 consecutive weeks. In Florida, the rate has been around 5% in recent weeks, and in Georgia, there has been an increase in RSV-related hospitalizations. Most of the hospitalizations in Georgia have been among infants less than a year old.

“Historically, such regional increases have predicted the beginning of RSV season nationally, with increased RSV activity spreading north and west over the following 2-3 months,” the CDC said.

Most children have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Historically, up to 80,000 children under 5 years old are hospitalized annually because of the virus, and between 100 and 300 die from complications each year. 

Those figures could be drastically different this year because new preventive treatments are available.

The CDC recommends that all children under 8 months old receive the newly approved monoclonal antibody treatment nirsevimab (Beyfortus). Children up to 19 months old at high risk of severe complications from RSV are also eligible for the single-dose shot. In clinical trials, the treatment was 80% effective at preventing RSV infections from becoming so severe that children had to be hospitalized. The protection lasted about 5 months.

Older people are also at a heightened risk of severe illness from RSV, and two new vaccines are available this season. The vaccines are called Arexvy and Abrysvo, and the single-dose shots are approved for people ages 60 years and older. They are more than 80% effective at making severe lower respiratory complications less likely.

Last year’s RSV season started during the summer and peaked in October and November, which was earlier than usual. There’s no indication yet of when RSV season may peak this year. Last year and throughout the pandemic, RSV held its historical pattern of starting in Florida.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An increase in cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in Florida and Georgia signals that RSV season has begun. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a national alert to health officials Sept. 5, urging them to offer new medicines that can prevent severe cases of the respiratory virus in very young children and in older people. Those two groups are at the highest risk of potentially deadly complications from RSV.

Typically, the CDC considers the start of RSV season to occur when the rate of positive tests for the virus goes above 3% for 2 consecutive weeks. In Florida, the rate has been around 5% in recent weeks, and in Georgia, there has been an increase in RSV-related hospitalizations. Most of the hospitalizations in Georgia have been among infants less than a year old.

“Historically, such regional increases have predicted the beginning of RSV season nationally, with increased RSV activity spreading north and west over the following 2-3 months,” the CDC said.

Most children have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Historically, up to 80,000 children under 5 years old are hospitalized annually because of the virus, and between 100 and 300 die from complications each year. 

Those figures could be drastically different this year because new preventive treatments are available.

The CDC recommends that all children under 8 months old receive the newly approved monoclonal antibody treatment nirsevimab (Beyfortus). Children up to 19 months old at high risk of severe complications from RSV are also eligible for the single-dose shot. In clinical trials, the treatment was 80% effective at preventing RSV infections from becoming so severe that children had to be hospitalized. The protection lasted about 5 months.

Older people are also at a heightened risk of severe illness from RSV, and two new vaccines are available this season. The vaccines are called Arexvy and Abrysvo, and the single-dose shots are approved for people ages 60 years and older. They are more than 80% effective at making severe lower respiratory complications less likely.

Last year’s RSV season started during the summer and peaked in October and November, which was earlier than usual. There’s no indication yet of when RSV season may peak this year. Last year and throughout the pandemic, RSV held its historical pattern of starting in Florida.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An increase in cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in Florida and Georgia signals that RSV season has begun. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a national alert to health officials Sept. 5, urging them to offer new medicines that can prevent severe cases of the respiratory virus in very young children and in older people. Those two groups are at the highest risk of potentially deadly complications from RSV.

Typically, the CDC considers the start of RSV season to occur when the rate of positive tests for the virus goes above 3% for 2 consecutive weeks. In Florida, the rate has been around 5% in recent weeks, and in Georgia, there has been an increase in RSV-related hospitalizations. Most of the hospitalizations in Georgia have been among infants less than a year old.

“Historically, such regional increases have predicted the beginning of RSV season nationally, with increased RSV activity spreading north and west over the following 2-3 months,” the CDC said.

Most children have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Historically, up to 80,000 children under 5 years old are hospitalized annually because of the virus, and between 100 and 300 die from complications each year. 

Those figures could be drastically different this year because new preventive treatments are available.

The CDC recommends that all children under 8 months old receive the newly approved monoclonal antibody treatment nirsevimab (Beyfortus). Children up to 19 months old at high risk of severe complications from RSV are also eligible for the single-dose shot. In clinical trials, the treatment was 80% effective at preventing RSV infections from becoming so severe that children had to be hospitalized. The protection lasted about 5 months.

Older people are also at a heightened risk of severe illness from RSV, and two new vaccines are available this season. The vaccines are called Arexvy and Abrysvo, and the single-dose shots are approved for people ages 60 years and older. They are more than 80% effective at making severe lower respiratory complications less likely.

Last year’s RSV season started during the summer and peaked in October and November, which was earlier than usual. There’s no indication yet of when RSV season may peak this year. Last year and throughout the pandemic, RSV held its historical pattern of starting in Florida.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna says its upcoming COVID-19 vaccine should work against the BA.2.86 variant that has caused worry about a possible surge in cases.

“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.

“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.

The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.

BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.

The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.

Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.

COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants. 

Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna says its upcoming COVID-19 vaccine should work against the BA.2.86 variant that has caused worry about a possible surge in cases.

“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.

“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.

The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.

BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.

The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.

Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.

COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants. 

Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna says its upcoming COVID-19 vaccine should work against the BA.2.86 variant that has caused worry about a possible surge in cases.

“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.

“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.

The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.

BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.

The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.

Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.

COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants. 

Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To avoid cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends performing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity every week, 75 minutes of intense aerobic activity every week, or a combination of both, preferably spread out throughout the week. But how knowledgeable are physicians when it comes to prescribing exercise, and how should patients be assessed so that appropriate physical activity can be recommended?

In a presentation titled, “Patient Evaluation and Exercise Prescription in Primary Prevention,” Thelma Sánchez Grillo, MD, a cardiologist at the Clínica Bíblica Hospital in San José, Costa Rica, explained the benefits and risks of exercise and gave recommendations for proper patient assessment before prescribing physical activity.

“Exercise has cardioprotective, emotional, antiarrhythmic, and antithrombotic benefits, and it reduces stress,” she explained.

She also noted that the risk regarding cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal components must be evaluated, because exercise can itself trigger coronary events, and the last thing intended when prescribing exercise is to cause complications. “We must recommend exercise progressively. We can’t suggest a high-intensity regimen to a patient if they haven’t had any preconditioning where collateral circulation could be developed and lung and cardiac capacity could be improved.”

Dr. Sánchez went on to say that, according to the AHA, patients should be classified as follows: those who exercise and those who don’t, those with a history of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, and those with symptomatic and asymptomatic diseases, in order to consider the parameters when recommending exercise.

“If the patient has symptoms and is doing light physical activity, like walking, they can keep doing this exercise and don’t need further assessments. But if they have a symptomatic disease and are not exercising, they need to be evaluated after exercise has been prescribed, and not just clinically, either. Some sort of diagnostic method should be considered. Also, for patients who are physically active and who desire to increase the intensity of their exercise, the recommendation is to perform a detailed clinical examination and, if necessary, perform additional imaging studies.”

Warning signs

• Dizziness.
• Orthopnea.
• Abnormal heart rate.
• Edema in the lower extremities.
• Chest pain, especially when occurring with exercise.
• Intermittent claudication.
• Heart murmurs.
• Dyspnea.
• Reduced output.
• Fatigue.

Calibrating exercise parameters

The parameters of frequency (number of sessions per week), intensity (perceived exertion measured by heart rate reached), time, and type (aerobic exercise vs. strength training) should be considered when forming an appropriate prescription for exercise, explained Dr. Sánchez.

“The big problem is that most physicians don’t know how to prescribe it properly. And beyond knowing how, the important thing is that, when we’re with the patient during the consultation, we ought to be doing more than just establishing a routine. We need to be motivators and we need to be identifying obstacles and the patient’s interest in exercise, because it’s clear that incorporating physical activity into our daily lives helps improve the quality and length of life,” the specialist added.

The recommendations are straightforward: for individuals aged 18-64 years, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week, whether aerobic, strength training, or mixed, should be prescribed. “We need to encourage moving more and sitting less, and recommend comprehensive programs that include coordination, balance, and muscle strengthening. If a sedentary lifestyle is a risk factor, we need to encourage patients to start performing physical activity for 1-2 minutes every hour, because any exercise must be gradual and progressive to avoid complications,” she noted.
 

Evaluate, then recommend

The specialist emphasized the importance of making personalized prescriptions, exercising caution, and performing adequate assessments to know which exercise routine to recommend. “The patient should also be involved in their self-care and must have an adequate diet and hydration, and we need to remind them that they shouldn’t be exercising if they have an infection, due to the risk of myocarditis and sudden death,” she added.

Rafaelina Concepción, MD, cardiologist from the Dominican Republic and vice president of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology for Central America and the Caribbean, agreed with the importance of assessing risk and risk factors for patients who request an exercise routine. “For example, in patients with prediabetes, it has been shown that exercising can slow the progression to diabetes. The essential thing is to use stratification and know what kind of exercise to recommend, whether aerobic, strength training, or a combination of the two, to improve functional capacity without reaching the threshold heart rate while reducing the risk of other comorbidities like hypertension, obesity, and high lipids, and achieving lifestyle changes.”

Carlos Franco, MD, a cardiologist in El Salvador, emphasized that there is no such thing as zero risk when evaluating a patient. “Of course, there’s a difference between an athlete and someone who isn’t physically active, but we need to profile all patients correctly, evaluate risk factors in detail, not overlook subclinical cardiovascular disease, and check whether they need stress testing or additional imaging to assess cardiac functional capacity. Also, exercise must be prescribed gradually, and the patient’s nutritional status must be assessed.”

Dr. Franco ended by explaining that physicians must understand how to prescribe the basics of exercise and make small interventions of reasonable intensity, provide practical advice, and, to the extent possible, rely on specialists such as physiatrists, sports specialists, and physical therapists.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intense throbbing, sensitivity to light and sound, nausea: These were the symptoms Nathan Solomon experienced during his first-ever migraine about a month after receiving a diagnosis of long COVID.

“I’ve also noticed visual disturbances, like flickering lights or blurred vision, which I later learned are called auras,” the 30-year-old medical billing specialist in Seattle told this news organization.

Mr. Solomon isn’t alone. It’s estimated that 1 out of 8 people with COVID develop long COVID. Of those persons, 44% also experience headaches. Research has found that many of those headaches are migraines – and many patients who are afflicted say they had never had a migraine before. These migraines tend to persist for at least 5 or 6 months, according to data from the American Headache Society.

What’s more, other patients may suddenly have more frequent or intense versions of headaches they’ve not noticed before.

The mechanism as to how long COVID could manifest migraines is not yet fully understood, but many doctors believe that inflammation caused by the virus plays a key role.

“To understand why some patients have migraine in long COVID, we have to go back to understand the role of inflammation in COVID-19 itself,” says Emad Estemalik, MD, clinical assistant professor of neurology at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine and section head of headache medicine at Cleveland Clinic.

In COVID-19, inflammation occurs because of a cytokine storm. Cytokines, which are proteins essential for a strong immune system, can be overproduced in a patient with COVID, which causes too much inflammation in any organ in the body, including the brain. This can result in new daily headache for some patients.

A new study from Italian researchers found that many patients who develop migraines for the first time while ill with long COVID are middle-aged women (traditionally a late point in life for a first migraine) who have a family history of migraine. Potential causes could have to do with the immune system remaining persistently activated from inflammation during long COVID, as well as the activation of the trigeminovascular system in the brain, which contains neurons that can trigger a migraine.

What treatments can work for migraines related to long COVID?

Long COVID usually causes a constellation of other symptoms at the same time as migraine.

“It’s so important for patients to take an interdisciplinary approach,” Dr. Estemalik stresses. “Patients should make sure their doctors are addressing all of their symptoms.”

When it comes to specifically targeting migraines, standard treatments can be effective.

“In terms of treating migraine in long COVID patients, we don’t do anything different or special,” says Matthew E. Fink, MD, chair of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College and chief of the Division of Stroke and Critical Care Neurology at New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. “We treat these patients with standard migraine medications.”

Mr. Solomon is following this course of action.

“My doctor prescribed triptans, which have been somewhat effective in reducing the severity and duration of the migraines,” he says. A daily supplement of magnesium and a daily dose of aspirin can also work for some patients, according to Dr. Fink.

Lifestyle modification is also a great idea.

“Patients should keep regular sleep hours, getting up and going to bed at the same time every day,” Dr. Fink continues. “Daily exercise is also recommended.”

Mr. Solomon suggests tracking migraine triggers and patterns in a journal.

“Try to identify lifestyle changes that help, like managing stress and staying hydrated,” Mr. Solomon advises. “Seeking support from health care professionals and support groups can make a significant difference.”

The best news of all: for patients that are diligent in following these strategies, they’ve been proven to work.

“We doctors are very optimistic when it comes to good outcomes for patients with long COVID and migraine,” Dr. Fink says. “I reassure my patients by telling them, ‘You will get better long-term.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intense throbbing, sensitivity to light and sound, nausea: These were the symptoms Nathan Solomon experienced during his first-ever migraine about a month after receiving a diagnosis of long COVID.

“I’ve also noticed visual disturbances, like flickering lights or blurred vision, which I later learned are called auras,” the 30-year-old medical billing specialist in Seattle told this news organization.

Mr. Solomon isn’t alone. It’s estimated that 1 out of 8 people with COVID develop long COVID. Of those persons, 44% also experience headaches. Research has found that many of those headaches are migraines – and many patients who are afflicted say they had never had a migraine before. These migraines tend to persist for at least 5 or 6 months, according to data from the American Headache Society.

What’s more, other patients may suddenly have more frequent or intense versions of headaches they’ve not noticed before.

The mechanism as to how long COVID could manifest migraines is not yet fully understood, but many doctors believe that inflammation caused by the virus plays a key role.

“To understand why some patients have migraine in long COVID, we have to go back to understand the role of inflammation in COVID-19 itself,” says Emad Estemalik, MD, clinical assistant professor of neurology at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine and section head of headache medicine at Cleveland Clinic.

In COVID-19, inflammation occurs because of a cytokine storm. Cytokines, which are proteins essential for a strong immune system, can be overproduced in a patient with COVID, which causes too much inflammation in any organ in the body, including the brain. This can result in new daily headache for some patients.

A new study from Italian researchers found that many patients who develop migraines for the first time while ill with long COVID are middle-aged women (traditionally a late point in life for a first migraine) who have a family history of migraine. Potential causes could have to do with the immune system remaining persistently activated from inflammation during long COVID, as well as the activation of the trigeminovascular system in the brain, which contains neurons that can trigger a migraine.

What treatments can work for migraines related to long COVID?

Long COVID usually causes a constellation of other symptoms at the same time as migraine.

“It’s so important for patients to take an interdisciplinary approach,” Dr. Estemalik stresses. “Patients should make sure their doctors are addressing all of their symptoms.”

When it comes to specifically targeting migraines, standard treatments can be effective.

“In terms of treating migraine in long COVID patients, we don’t do anything different or special,” says Matthew E. Fink, MD, chair of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College and chief of the Division of Stroke and Critical Care Neurology at New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. “We treat these patients with standard migraine medications.”

Mr. Solomon is following this course of action.

“My doctor prescribed triptans, which have been somewhat effective in reducing the severity and duration of the migraines,” he says. A daily supplement of magnesium and a daily dose of aspirin can also work for some patients, according to Dr. Fink.

Lifestyle modification is also a great idea.

“Patients should keep regular sleep hours, getting up and going to bed at the same time every day,” Dr. Fink continues. “Daily exercise is also recommended.”

Mr. Solomon suggests tracking migraine triggers and patterns in a journal.

“Try to identify lifestyle changes that help, like managing stress and staying hydrated,” Mr. Solomon advises. “Seeking support from health care professionals and support groups can make a significant difference.”

The best news of all: for patients that are diligent in following these strategies, they’ve been proven to work.

“We doctors are very optimistic when it comes to good outcomes for patients with long COVID and migraine,” Dr. Fink says. “I reassure my patients by telling them, ‘You will get better long-term.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intense throbbing, sensitivity to light and sound, nausea: These were the symptoms Nathan Solomon experienced during his first-ever migraine about a month after receiving a diagnosis of long COVID.

“I’ve also noticed visual disturbances, like flickering lights or blurred vision, which I later learned are called auras,” the 30-year-old medical billing specialist in Seattle told this news organization.

Mr. Solomon isn’t alone. It’s estimated that 1 out of 8 people with COVID develop long COVID. Of those persons, 44% also experience headaches. Research has found that many of those headaches are migraines – and many patients who are afflicted say they had never had a migraine before. These migraines tend to persist for at least 5 or 6 months, according to data from the American Headache Society.

What’s more, other patients may suddenly have more frequent or intense versions of headaches they’ve not noticed before.

The mechanism as to how long COVID could manifest migraines is not yet fully understood, but many doctors believe that inflammation caused by the virus plays a key role.

“To understand why some patients have migraine in long COVID, we have to go back to understand the role of inflammation in COVID-19 itself,” says Emad Estemalik, MD, clinical assistant professor of neurology at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine and section head of headache medicine at Cleveland Clinic.

In COVID-19, inflammation occurs because of a cytokine storm. Cytokines, which are proteins essential for a strong immune system, can be overproduced in a patient with COVID, which causes too much inflammation in any organ in the body, including the brain. This can result in new daily headache for some patients.

A new study from Italian researchers found that many patients who develop migraines for the first time while ill with long COVID are middle-aged women (traditionally a late point in life for a first migraine) who have a family history of migraine. Potential causes could have to do with the immune system remaining persistently activated from inflammation during long COVID, as well as the activation of the trigeminovascular system in the brain, which contains neurons that can trigger a migraine.

What treatments can work for migraines related to long COVID?

Long COVID usually causes a constellation of other symptoms at the same time as migraine.

“It’s so important for patients to take an interdisciplinary approach,” Dr. Estemalik stresses. “Patients should make sure their doctors are addressing all of their symptoms.”

When it comes to specifically targeting migraines, standard treatments can be effective.

“In terms of treating migraine in long COVID patients, we don’t do anything different or special,” says Matthew E. Fink, MD, chair of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College and chief of the Division of Stroke and Critical Care Neurology at New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. “We treat these patients with standard migraine medications.”

Mr. Solomon is following this course of action.

“My doctor prescribed triptans, which have been somewhat effective in reducing the severity and duration of the migraines,” he says. A daily supplement of magnesium and a daily dose of aspirin can also work for some patients, according to Dr. Fink.

Lifestyle modification is also a great idea.

“Patients should keep regular sleep hours, getting up and going to bed at the same time every day,” Dr. Fink continues. “Daily exercise is also recommended.”

Mr. Solomon suggests tracking migraine triggers and patterns in a journal.

“Try to identify lifestyle changes that help, like managing stress and staying hydrated,” Mr. Solomon advises. “Seeking support from health care professionals and support groups can make a significant difference.”

The best news of all: for patients that are diligent in following these strategies, they’ve been proven to work.

“We doctors are very optimistic when it comes to good outcomes for patients with long COVID and migraine,” Dr. Fink says. “I reassure my patients by telling them, ‘You will get better long-term.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.