Neurology

Children and adolescents with migraine are about twice as likely to have an anxiety or depressive disorder as those without migraine, results from a new review and meta-analysis suggest.

“This is compelling, high-level evidence showing there’s this established comorbidity between migraine and anxiety and depressive symptoms and disorders in this age group,” co-investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, a pediatric neurologist and headache specialist at Alberta Children’s Hospital and assistant professor in the department of pediatrics, University of Calgary (Alta.), told this news organization.

The results “should compel every clinician who is seeing a child or adolescent with migraine to screen for anxiety and depression and to manage that if it’s present. That should be the standard of care with this level of evidence,” Dr. Orr said.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society (AHS) Annual Meeting 2022.
 

Incidence divergence

Previous studies have suggested that 10%-20% of children and adolescents will experience migraine at some point before adulthood, with the prevalence increasing after puberty.

While the female-to-male ratio is about 1:1 before puberty, there is a “big divergence in incidence curves” afterward – with the female-to-male ratio reaching 2-3:1 in adulthood, Dr. Orr noted. Experts believe hormones drive this divergence, she said, noting that male adults with migraine have lower testosterone levels than male adults without migraine.

Dr. Orr and her colleagues were keen to investigate the relationship between child migraine and anxiety symptoms and disorders, as well as between child migraine and depression symptoms and disorders. They searched the literature for related case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort studies with participants of ages up to 18 years.

The researchers selected 80 studies to include in the review. Most of the studies were carried out in the past 30 to 40 years and were in English and other languages. Both community-based and clinical studies were included.

Of the total, 73 studies reported on the association between the exposures and migraine, and 51 were amenable to quantitative pooling.

Results from a meta-analysis that included 16 studies that compared children and adolescents who had migraine with their healthy peers showed a significant association between migraine and anxiety symptoms (standardized mean difference, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.63; P < .0001).

Compared with children who did not have migraine, those with migraine had almost twice the odds of an anxiety disorder in 15 studies (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.49-2.50; P < .0001).

In addition, there was an association between migraine and depressive symptoms in 17 relevant studies (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P < .0001). Participants with versus without migraine also had higher odds of depressive disorders in 18 studies (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.46-2.78; P < .0001).

Effect sizes were similar between community-based and clinic studies. Dr. Orr said it is important to note that the analysis wasn’t restricted to studies with “just kids with really high disease burden who are going to naturally be more predisposed to psychiatric comorbidity.”
 

‘Shocking’ lack of research

The researchers were also interested in determining whether having migraine along with anxiety or depression symptoms or disorders could affect headache-specific outcomes and whether such patients’ conditions would be more refractory to treatment. However, these outcomes were “all over the place” in the 18 relevant studies, Dr. Orr reported.

“Some looked at headache frequency, some at disability, some at school functioning; so, we were not able to put them into a meta-analysis,” she said.

Only two studies examined whether anxiety or depression earlier in childhood predisposes to subsequent migraine, so that issue is still unresolved, Dr. Orr added.

The investigators also assessed whether outcomes with migraine are similar to those with other headache types, such as tension-type headaches. “We did not find a difference at the symptom or disorder level, but there were fewer of those studies” – and these, too, were heterogeneous, said Dr. Orr.

The researchers did not find any studies of the association between migraine and trauma, which Dr. Orr said was “shocking.”

“In the broader pediatric chronic-pain literature, there’s research showing that having a trauma or stress-related disorder is associated with more chronic pain and worse chronic pain outcomes, but we could not find a study that specifically looked at that question in migraine,” she added.

Emerging evidence suggests there may be a bidirectional relationship between migraine and anxiety/depression, at least in adults. Dr. Orr said having these symptoms appears to raise the risk for migraine, but whether that’s environmental or driven by shared genetics isn’t clear.

Experiencing chronic pain may also predispose individuals to anxiety and depression, “but we need more studies on this.”

In addition to screening children with migraine for anxiety and depression, clinicians should advocate for better access to mental health resources for patients with these comorbidities, Dr. Orr noted.

She added that a limitation of the review was that 82.5% of the studies reported unadjusted associations and that 26.3% of the studies were of low quality.
 

High-level evidence

Sara Pavitt, MD, chief of the Pediatric Headache Program and assistant professor in the department of neurology, the University of Texas at Austin, said the investigators “should be applauded” for providing “high-level evidence” to better understand the relationship between migraine and anxiety and depression in pediatric patients.

Such information has been “lacking” for this patient population, said Dr. Pavitt, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that screening kids for mood disorders is challenging, given the relatively few pediatric mental health care providers. A referral for a psychiatric follow-up can mean a 9- to 12-month wait – or even longer for children who do not have insurance or use Medicare.

“Providers need to have more incentives to care for patients with Medicare or lack of insurance – these patients are often excluded from practices because reimbursement is so poor,” Dr. Pavitt said.

Additional pediatric studies are needed to understand how other mental health disorders, such as panic disorder, phobias, and posttraumatic stress disorder, may be related to migraine, she added.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Orr has received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and royalties from Cambridge University Press for book publication, and she is on editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation. Dr. Pavitt serves on an advisory board for Theranica, which produces a neuromodulation device for acute migraine treatment, although this is not directly relevant to this review.

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

Children and adolescents with migraine are about twice as likely to have an anxiety or depressive disorder as those without migraine, results from a new review and meta-analysis suggest.

“This is compelling, high-level evidence showing there’s this established comorbidity between migraine and anxiety and depressive symptoms and disorders in this age group,” co-investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, a pediatric neurologist and headache specialist at Alberta Children’s Hospital and assistant professor in the department of pediatrics, University of Calgary (Alta.), told this news organization.

The results “should compel every clinician who is seeing a child or adolescent with migraine to screen for anxiety and depression and to manage that if it’s present. That should be the standard of care with this level of evidence,” Dr. Orr said.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society (AHS) Annual Meeting 2022.
 

Incidence divergence

Previous studies have suggested that 10%-20% of children and adolescents will experience migraine at some point before adulthood, with the prevalence increasing after puberty.

While the female-to-male ratio is about 1:1 before puberty, there is a “big divergence in incidence curves” afterward – with the female-to-male ratio reaching 2-3:1 in adulthood, Dr. Orr noted. Experts believe hormones drive this divergence, she said, noting that male adults with migraine have lower testosterone levels than male adults without migraine.

Dr. Orr and her colleagues were keen to investigate the relationship between child migraine and anxiety symptoms and disorders, as well as between child migraine and depression symptoms and disorders. They searched the literature for related case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort studies with participants of ages up to 18 years.

The researchers selected 80 studies to include in the review. Most of the studies were carried out in the past 30 to 40 years and were in English and other languages. Both community-based and clinical studies were included.

Of the total, 73 studies reported on the association between the exposures and migraine, and 51 were amenable to quantitative pooling.

Results from a meta-analysis that included 16 studies that compared children and adolescents who had migraine with their healthy peers showed a significant association between migraine and anxiety symptoms (standardized mean difference, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.63; P < .0001).

Compared with children who did not have migraine, those with migraine had almost twice the odds of an anxiety disorder in 15 studies (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.49-2.50; P < .0001).

In addition, there was an association between migraine and depressive symptoms in 17 relevant studies (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P < .0001). Participants with versus without migraine also had higher odds of depressive disorders in 18 studies (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.46-2.78; P < .0001).

Effect sizes were similar between community-based and clinic studies. Dr. Orr said it is important to note that the analysis wasn’t restricted to studies with “just kids with really high disease burden who are going to naturally be more predisposed to psychiatric comorbidity.”
 

‘Shocking’ lack of research

The researchers were also interested in determining whether having migraine along with anxiety or depression symptoms or disorders could affect headache-specific outcomes and whether such patients’ conditions would be more refractory to treatment. However, these outcomes were “all over the place” in the 18 relevant studies, Dr. Orr reported.

“Some looked at headache frequency, some at disability, some at school functioning; so, we were not able to put them into a meta-analysis,” she said.

Only two studies examined whether anxiety or depression earlier in childhood predisposes to subsequent migraine, so that issue is still unresolved, Dr. Orr added.

The investigators also assessed whether outcomes with migraine are similar to those with other headache types, such as tension-type headaches. “We did not find a difference at the symptom or disorder level, but there were fewer of those studies” – and these, too, were heterogeneous, said Dr. Orr.

The researchers did not find any studies of the association between migraine and trauma, which Dr. Orr said was “shocking.”

“In the broader pediatric chronic-pain literature, there’s research showing that having a trauma or stress-related disorder is associated with more chronic pain and worse chronic pain outcomes, but we could not find a study that specifically looked at that question in migraine,” she added.

Emerging evidence suggests there may be a bidirectional relationship between migraine and anxiety/depression, at least in adults. Dr. Orr said having these symptoms appears to raise the risk for migraine, but whether that’s environmental or driven by shared genetics isn’t clear.

Experiencing chronic pain may also predispose individuals to anxiety and depression, “but we need more studies on this.”

In addition to screening children with migraine for anxiety and depression, clinicians should advocate for better access to mental health resources for patients with these comorbidities, Dr. Orr noted.

She added that a limitation of the review was that 82.5% of the studies reported unadjusted associations and that 26.3% of the studies were of low quality.
 

High-level evidence

Sara Pavitt, MD, chief of the Pediatric Headache Program and assistant professor in the department of neurology, the University of Texas at Austin, said the investigators “should be applauded” for providing “high-level evidence” to better understand the relationship between migraine and anxiety and depression in pediatric patients.

Such information has been “lacking” for this patient population, said Dr. Pavitt, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that screening kids for mood disorders is challenging, given the relatively few pediatric mental health care providers. A referral for a psychiatric follow-up can mean a 9- to 12-month wait – or even longer for children who do not have insurance or use Medicare.

“Providers need to have more incentives to care for patients with Medicare or lack of insurance – these patients are often excluded from practices because reimbursement is so poor,” Dr. Pavitt said.

Additional pediatric studies are needed to understand how other mental health disorders, such as panic disorder, phobias, and posttraumatic stress disorder, may be related to migraine, she added.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Orr has received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and royalties from Cambridge University Press for book publication, and she is on editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation. Dr. Pavitt serves on an advisory board for Theranica, which produces a neuromodulation device for acute migraine treatment, although this is not directly relevant to this review.

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

Children and adolescents with migraine are about twice as likely to have an anxiety or depressive disorder as those without migraine, results from a new review and meta-analysis suggest.

“This is compelling, high-level evidence showing there’s this established comorbidity between migraine and anxiety and depressive symptoms and disorders in this age group,” co-investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, a pediatric neurologist and headache specialist at Alberta Children’s Hospital and assistant professor in the department of pediatrics, University of Calgary (Alta.), told this news organization.

The results “should compel every clinician who is seeing a child or adolescent with migraine to screen for anxiety and depression and to manage that if it’s present. That should be the standard of care with this level of evidence,” Dr. Orr said.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society (AHS) Annual Meeting 2022.
 

Incidence divergence

Previous studies have suggested that 10%-20% of children and adolescents will experience migraine at some point before adulthood, with the prevalence increasing after puberty.

While the female-to-male ratio is about 1:1 before puberty, there is a “big divergence in incidence curves” afterward – with the female-to-male ratio reaching 2-3:1 in adulthood, Dr. Orr noted. Experts believe hormones drive this divergence, she said, noting that male adults with migraine have lower testosterone levels than male adults without migraine.

Dr. Orr and her colleagues were keen to investigate the relationship between child migraine and anxiety symptoms and disorders, as well as between child migraine and depression symptoms and disorders. They searched the literature for related case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort studies with participants of ages up to 18 years.

The researchers selected 80 studies to include in the review. Most of the studies were carried out in the past 30 to 40 years and were in English and other languages. Both community-based and clinical studies were included.

Of the total, 73 studies reported on the association between the exposures and migraine, and 51 were amenable to quantitative pooling.

Results from a meta-analysis that included 16 studies that compared children and adolescents who had migraine with their healthy peers showed a significant association between migraine and anxiety symptoms (standardized mean difference, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.63; P < .0001).

Compared with children who did not have migraine, those with migraine had almost twice the odds of an anxiety disorder in 15 studies (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.49-2.50; P < .0001).

In addition, there was an association between migraine and depressive symptoms in 17 relevant studies (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P < .0001). Participants with versus without migraine also had higher odds of depressive disorders in 18 studies (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.46-2.78; P < .0001).

Effect sizes were similar between community-based and clinic studies. Dr. Orr said it is important to note that the analysis wasn’t restricted to studies with “just kids with really high disease burden who are going to naturally be more predisposed to psychiatric comorbidity.”
 

‘Shocking’ lack of research

The researchers were also interested in determining whether having migraine along with anxiety or depression symptoms or disorders could affect headache-specific outcomes and whether such patients’ conditions would be more refractory to treatment. However, these outcomes were “all over the place” in the 18 relevant studies, Dr. Orr reported.

“Some looked at headache frequency, some at disability, some at school functioning; so, we were not able to put them into a meta-analysis,” she said.

Only two studies examined whether anxiety or depression earlier in childhood predisposes to subsequent migraine, so that issue is still unresolved, Dr. Orr added.

The investigators also assessed whether outcomes with migraine are similar to those with other headache types, such as tension-type headaches. “We did not find a difference at the symptom or disorder level, but there were fewer of those studies” – and these, too, were heterogeneous, said Dr. Orr.

The researchers did not find any studies of the association between migraine and trauma, which Dr. Orr said was “shocking.”

“In the broader pediatric chronic-pain literature, there’s research showing that having a trauma or stress-related disorder is associated with more chronic pain and worse chronic pain outcomes, but we could not find a study that specifically looked at that question in migraine,” she added.

Emerging evidence suggests there may be a bidirectional relationship between migraine and anxiety/depression, at least in adults. Dr. Orr said having these symptoms appears to raise the risk for migraine, but whether that’s environmental or driven by shared genetics isn’t clear.

Experiencing chronic pain may also predispose individuals to anxiety and depression, “but we need more studies on this.”

In addition to screening children with migraine for anxiety and depression, clinicians should advocate for better access to mental health resources for patients with these comorbidities, Dr. Orr noted.

She added that a limitation of the review was that 82.5% of the studies reported unadjusted associations and that 26.3% of the studies were of low quality.
 

High-level evidence

Sara Pavitt, MD, chief of the Pediatric Headache Program and assistant professor in the department of neurology, the University of Texas at Austin, said the investigators “should be applauded” for providing “high-level evidence” to better understand the relationship between migraine and anxiety and depression in pediatric patients.

Such information has been “lacking” for this patient population, said Dr. Pavitt, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that screening kids for mood disorders is challenging, given the relatively few pediatric mental health care providers. A referral for a psychiatric follow-up can mean a 9- to 12-month wait – or even longer for children who do not have insurance or use Medicare.

“Providers need to have more incentives to care for patients with Medicare or lack of insurance – these patients are often excluded from practices because reimbursement is so poor,” Dr. Pavitt said.

Additional pediatric studies are needed to understand how other mental health disorders, such as panic disorder, phobias, and posttraumatic stress disorder, may be related to migraine, she added.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Orr has received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and royalties from Cambridge University Press for book publication, and she is on editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation. Dr. Pavitt serves on an advisory board for Theranica, which produces a neuromodulation device for acute migraine treatment, although this is not directly relevant to this review.

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

A new tool can help streamline diagnosis and treatment of migraine in the primary care setting, research suggests.

Early results from a small pilot study showed that the tool, essentially a medical record “best-practice alert,” reduces specialist referrals and MRI studies.

The idea behind the tool is to give primary care physicians “fingertip access” to prompts on patients’ electronic health record, leading to best migraine management and treatment, said coinvestigator, Scott M. Friedenberg, MD, vice chair of clinical practice, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pa.

When clinicians enter a headache diagnosis into a patient’s EHR, a pop-up asks a handful of questions and “prompts them with the right medications so if they just click a button, they can order the medications straight away,” Dr. Friedenberg said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

Fewer referrals, MRI testing

Researchers reviewed charts for 693 general neurology referrals. About 20% of the patients were referred for headache. In about 80% of these cases, the final diagnosis was migraine and/or chronic daily headache.

The physicians had documented criteria for identifying migraine, such as sensitivity to light, nausea, and missed social activity or work, in fewer than 1% of cases. There’s roughly an 80% chance that if a headache meets two of these three criteria, it is a migraine, Dr. Friedenberg noted.

About 60% of the participants with headache were referred with no treatment trial. About 20% were referred after having tried two medicines, and 30% were referred after trying one medicine.

“In many cases, we’re being asked to evaluate people with primary headache or uncomplicated headache that has not been treated,” said Dr. Friedenberg.

The investigators developed the tool, and its most recent iteration was tested by 10 physicians at two sites for 3 months. These doctors did not receive education on headache, they were just taught how to use the tool.

Results showed that referrals for neurology consults dropped 77% and MRI ordering dropped 35% after use of the tool. This translated into a savings of $192,000.

However, using the tool didn’t significantly affect prescribing habits of the physicians.
 

Migraine frequently undertreated

“When you drill it down, the only thing that changed were medications they were comfortable with, so they increased steroids and nonsteroidal prescribing, but preventives didn’t change, narcotics didn’t change, and CGRP [calcitonin gene-related peptide] inhibitors didn’t change,” Dr. Friedenberg said.

Although believing patients are “not bad enough to treat” might help explain why clinicians did not change prescribing habits, the reality is that many patients have migraine and should be treated, he added.

Dr. Friedenberg pointed out that previous research suggests that 60% or more of patients with a primary headache or migraine are undertreated.

The tool should increase awareness about, and comfort level with, diagnosing and treating migraine among primary care doctors, he noted. “We hope it will make it easier for them to do the right thing and have neurology as a readily available partner,” said Dr. Friedenberg.

“Primary care doctors are incredibly busy and incredibly pressured, and anything you can do to help facilitate that is a positive,” he added.

The researchers now plan to train pharmacists to comanage headache along with primary care doctors, as is done, for example, for patients with diabetes. This should result in a reduction in physician burden, said Dr. Friedenberg.

The next step is to conduct a larger study at the 38 sites in the Geisinger health complex. Half the sites will use the new tool, and the other half will continue to use their current headache management process.

“The study will compare everything from MRI ordering to neurology referrals and prescribing, how often patients go to the emergency department, how often they have a clinic visit, whether the provider is satisfied with the tool, and if the patient’s headaches are getting better,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
 

Lessons for clinical practice

Jessica Ailani, MD, director at MedStar Georgetown Headache Center and associate professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University, cochaired the session in which the research was presented and called the project “really fantastic.”

The study offers “many lessons” for clinical practice and showed that the tool was effective in improving diagnosis of migraine, said Dr. Ailani, who is also secretary of the American Headache Society.

“There’s a long wait time to see specialists, and most migraine can be diagnosed and basic management can be done by primary care physicians,” she said.

“The next step would be to work on a way to improve prescriptions of migraine-specific treatments,” she added.

Dr. Ailani noted that the AHS would be keen to find ways to engage in “collaborative work” with the investigators.

The investigators and Dr. Ailani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new tool can help streamline diagnosis and treatment of migraine in the primary care setting, research suggests.

Early results from a small pilot study showed that the tool, essentially a medical record “best-practice alert,” reduces specialist referrals and MRI studies.

The idea behind the tool is to give primary care physicians “fingertip access” to prompts on patients’ electronic health record, leading to best migraine management and treatment, said coinvestigator, Scott M. Friedenberg, MD, vice chair of clinical practice, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pa.

When clinicians enter a headache diagnosis into a patient’s EHR, a pop-up asks a handful of questions and “prompts them with the right medications so if they just click a button, they can order the medications straight away,” Dr. Friedenberg said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

Fewer referrals, MRI testing

Researchers reviewed charts for 693 general neurology referrals. About 20% of the patients were referred for headache. In about 80% of these cases, the final diagnosis was migraine and/or chronic daily headache.

The physicians had documented criteria for identifying migraine, such as sensitivity to light, nausea, and missed social activity or work, in fewer than 1% of cases. There’s roughly an 80% chance that if a headache meets two of these three criteria, it is a migraine, Dr. Friedenberg noted.

About 60% of the participants with headache were referred with no treatment trial. About 20% were referred after having tried two medicines, and 30% were referred after trying one medicine.

“In many cases, we’re being asked to evaluate people with primary headache or uncomplicated headache that has not been treated,” said Dr. Friedenberg.

The investigators developed the tool, and its most recent iteration was tested by 10 physicians at two sites for 3 months. These doctors did not receive education on headache, they were just taught how to use the tool.

Results showed that referrals for neurology consults dropped 77% and MRI ordering dropped 35% after use of the tool. This translated into a savings of $192,000.

However, using the tool didn’t significantly affect prescribing habits of the physicians.
 

Migraine frequently undertreated

“When you drill it down, the only thing that changed were medications they were comfortable with, so they increased steroids and nonsteroidal prescribing, but preventives didn’t change, narcotics didn’t change, and CGRP [calcitonin gene-related peptide] inhibitors didn’t change,” Dr. Friedenberg said.

Although believing patients are “not bad enough to treat” might help explain why clinicians did not change prescribing habits, the reality is that many patients have migraine and should be treated, he added.

Dr. Friedenberg pointed out that previous research suggests that 60% or more of patients with a primary headache or migraine are undertreated.

The tool should increase awareness about, and comfort level with, diagnosing and treating migraine among primary care doctors, he noted. “We hope it will make it easier for them to do the right thing and have neurology as a readily available partner,” said Dr. Friedenberg.

“Primary care doctors are incredibly busy and incredibly pressured, and anything you can do to help facilitate that is a positive,” he added.

The researchers now plan to train pharmacists to comanage headache along with primary care doctors, as is done, for example, for patients with diabetes. This should result in a reduction in physician burden, said Dr. Friedenberg.

The next step is to conduct a larger study at the 38 sites in the Geisinger health complex. Half the sites will use the new tool, and the other half will continue to use their current headache management process.

“The study will compare everything from MRI ordering to neurology referrals and prescribing, how often patients go to the emergency department, how often they have a clinic visit, whether the provider is satisfied with the tool, and if the patient’s headaches are getting better,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
 

Lessons for clinical practice

Jessica Ailani, MD, director at MedStar Georgetown Headache Center and associate professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University, cochaired the session in which the research was presented and called the project “really fantastic.”

The study offers “many lessons” for clinical practice and showed that the tool was effective in improving diagnosis of migraine, said Dr. Ailani, who is also secretary of the American Headache Society.

“There’s a long wait time to see specialists, and most migraine can be diagnosed and basic management can be done by primary care physicians,” she said.

“The next step would be to work on a way to improve prescriptions of migraine-specific treatments,” she added.

Dr. Ailani noted that the AHS would be keen to find ways to engage in “collaborative work” with the investigators.

The investigators and Dr. Ailani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new tool can help streamline diagnosis and treatment of migraine in the primary care setting, research suggests.

Early results from a small pilot study showed that the tool, essentially a medical record “best-practice alert,” reduces specialist referrals and MRI studies.

The idea behind the tool is to give primary care physicians “fingertip access” to prompts on patients’ electronic health record, leading to best migraine management and treatment, said coinvestigator, Scott M. Friedenberg, MD, vice chair of clinical practice, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pa.

When clinicians enter a headache diagnosis into a patient’s EHR, a pop-up asks a handful of questions and “prompts them with the right medications so if they just click a button, they can order the medications straight away,” Dr. Friedenberg said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

Fewer referrals, MRI testing

Researchers reviewed charts for 693 general neurology referrals. About 20% of the patients were referred for headache. In about 80% of these cases, the final diagnosis was migraine and/or chronic daily headache.

The physicians had documented criteria for identifying migraine, such as sensitivity to light, nausea, and missed social activity or work, in fewer than 1% of cases. There’s roughly an 80% chance that if a headache meets two of these three criteria, it is a migraine, Dr. Friedenberg noted.

About 60% of the participants with headache were referred with no treatment trial. About 20% were referred after having tried two medicines, and 30% were referred after trying one medicine.

“In many cases, we’re being asked to evaluate people with primary headache or uncomplicated headache that has not been treated,” said Dr. Friedenberg.

The investigators developed the tool, and its most recent iteration was tested by 10 physicians at two sites for 3 months. These doctors did not receive education on headache, they were just taught how to use the tool.

Results showed that referrals for neurology consults dropped 77% and MRI ordering dropped 35% after use of the tool. This translated into a savings of $192,000.

However, using the tool didn’t significantly affect prescribing habits of the physicians.
 

Migraine frequently undertreated

“When you drill it down, the only thing that changed were medications they were comfortable with, so they increased steroids and nonsteroidal prescribing, but preventives didn’t change, narcotics didn’t change, and CGRP [calcitonin gene-related peptide] inhibitors didn’t change,” Dr. Friedenberg said.

Although believing patients are “not bad enough to treat” might help explain why clinicians did not change prescribing habits, the reality is that many patients have migraine and should be treated, he added.

Dr. Friedenberg pointed out that previous research suggests that 60% or more of patients with a primary headache or migraine are undertreated.

The tool should increase awareness about, and comfort level with, diagnosing and treating migraine among primary care doctors, he noted. “We hope it will make it easier for them to do the right thing and have neurology as a readily available partner,” said Dr. Friedenberg.

“Primary care doctors are incredibly busy and incredibly pressured, and anything you can do to help facilitate that is a positive,” he added.

The researchers now plan to train pharmacists to comanage headache along with primary care doctors, as is done, for example, for patients with diabetes. This should result in a reduction in physician burden, said Dr. Friedenberg.

The next step is to conduct a larger study at the 38 sites in the Geisinger health complex. Half the sites will use the new tool, and the other half will continue to use their current headache management process.

“The study will compare everything from MRI ordering to neurology referrals and prescribing, how often patients go to the emergency department, how often they have a clinic visit, whether the provider is satisfied with the tool, and if the patient’s headaches are getting better,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
 

Lessons for clinical practice

Jessica Ailani, MD, director at MedStar Georgetown Headache Center and associate professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University, cochaired the session in which the research was presented and called the project “really fantastic.”

The study offers “many lessons” for clinical practice and showed that the tool was effective in improving diagnosis of migraine, said Dr. Ailani, who is also secretary of the American Headache Society.

“There’s a long wait time to see specialists, and most migraine can be diagnosed and basic management can be done by primary care physicians,” she said.

“The next step would be to work on a way to improve prescriptions of migraine-specific treatments,” she added.

Dr. Ailani noted that the AHS would be keen to find ways to engage in “collaborative work” with the investigators.

The investigators and Dr. Ailani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides more evidence that influenza vaccination may help protect older adults against Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.

“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.

The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.

The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

40% lower risk

Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.

However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.

Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.

The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.

During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.

The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
 

Mechanism unclear

“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.

“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.

It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.

“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
 

Alzheimer’s expert weighs in

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.

“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.

“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.

“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides more evidence that influenza vaccination may help protect older adults against Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.

“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.

The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.

The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

40% lower risk

Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.

However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.

Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.

The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.

During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.

The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
 

Mechanism unclear

“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.

“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.

It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.

“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
 

Alzheimer’s expert weighs in

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.

“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.

“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.

“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides more evidence that influenza vaccination may help protect older adults against Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

In a large propensity-matched cohort of older adults, those who had received at least one influenza inoculation were 40% less likely than unvaccinated peers to develop AD over the course of 4 years.

“Influenza infection can cause serious health complications, particularly in adults 65 and older. Our study’s findings – that vaccination against the flu virus may also reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia for at least a few years – adds to the already compelling reasons get the flu vaccine annually,” Avram Bukhbinder, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, said in an interview.

The new findings support earlier work by the same researchers that also suggested a protective effect of flu vaccination on dementia risk.

The latest study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

40% lower risk

Prior studies have found a lower risk of dementia of any etiology following influenza vaccination in selected populations, including veterans and patients with serious chronic health conditions.

However, the effect of influenza vaccination on AD risk in a general cohort of older U.S. adults has not been characterized.

Dr. Bukhbinder and colleagues used claims data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 935,887 influenza-vaccinated adults and a like number of unvaccinated adults aged 65 and older.

The median age of the persons in the matched sample was 73.7 years, and 57% were women. All were free of dementia during the 6-year look-back study period.

During median follow-up of 46 months, 47,889 (5.1%) flu-vaccinated adults and 79,630 (8.5%) unvaccinated adults developed AD.

The risk of AD was 40% lower in the vaccinated group (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.61). The absolute risk reduction was 0.034 (95% CI, 0.033-0.035), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 29.4.
 

Mechanism unclear

“Our study does not address the mechanism(s) underlying the apparent effect of influenza vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, but we look forward to future research investigating this important question,” Dr. Bukhbinder said.

“One possible mechanism is that, by helping to prevent or mitigate infection with the flu virus and the systemic inflammation that follows such an infection, the flu vaccine helps to decrease the systemic inflammation that may have otherwise occurred,” he explained.

It’s also possible that influenza vaccination may trigger non–influenza-specific changes in the immune system that help to reduce the damage caused by AD pathology, including amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, he said.

“For example, the influenza vaccine may alter the brain’s immune cells such that they are better at clearing Alzheimer’s pathologies, an effect that has been seen in mice, or it may reprogram these immune cells to respond to Alzheimer’s pathologies in ways that are less likely to damage nearby healthy brain cells, or it may do both,” Dr. Bukhbinder noted.
 

Alzheimer’s expert weighs in

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this study “suggests that flu vaccination may be valuable for maintaining cognition and memory as we age. This is even more relevant today in the COVID-19 environment.

“It is too early to tell if getting flu vaccine, on its own, can reduce risk of Alzheimer’s. More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the results in this study,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview.

“For example, it is possible that people who are getting vaccinated also take better care of their health in other ways, and these things add up to lower risk of Alzheimer’s and other dementias,” she noted.

“It is also possible that there are issues related to unequal access and/or vaccine hesitancy and how this may influence the study population and the research results,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Bukhbinder and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) have notable shrinkage in key brain structures and these deficits are less severe in patients on the path to weight recovery, a new brain imaging study shows.

The reductions of cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and cortical surface area were “very pronounced in acutely underweight anorexia,” Stefan Ehrlich, MD, PhD, head of the Eating Disorder Treatment and Research Center, Technical University, Dresden, Germany, told this news organization.

Yet even a “partial weight gain brings some normalization of these shrinkages. From this it can be deduced that a fast/early normalization of weight is also very important for brain health,” said Dr. Ehrlich.

The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.
 

‘A wake-up call’

Researchers with the international ENIGMA Eating Disorders Working Group analyzed T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging scans for nearly 2,000 people with AN (including those in recovery) and healthy controls across 22 sites worldwide.

In the AN sample, reductions in cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and, to a lesser extent, cortical surface area, were “sizable (Cohen’s d up to 0.95), widespread, and co-localized with hub regions,” they report.

These reductions were two and four times larger than the abnormalities in brain size and shape seen in patients with other mental illnesses, the researchers note.

Noting the harmful impact of anorexia-related undernutrition on the brain, these deficits were associated with lower body mass index in the AN sample and were less severe in partially weight-restored patients – implying that, with appropriate early treatment and support, the brain might be able to repair itself, the investigators note.

“This really is a wake-up call, showing the need for early interventions for people with eating disorders,” Paul Thompson, PhD, author and lead scientist for the ENIGMA Consortium, said in a news release.

“The international scale of this work is extraordinary. Scientists from 22 centers worldwide pooled their brain scans to create the most detailed picture to date of how anorexia affects the brain,” Dr. Thompson added.

“The brain changes in anorexia were more severe than in other any psychiatric condition we have studied. Effects of treatments and interventions can now be evaluated, using these new brain maps as a reference,” he noted.
 

Immediate clinical implications

Reached for comment, Allison Eliscu, MD, chief of the division of adolescent medicine, department of pediatrics, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said the findings have immediate implications for clinical care.

“When we talk to our patients and the parents, a lot of them focus on things that they can see, such as the way they look. It adds a lot to the conversation to be able to say: You’re obviously not seeing these changes in the brain, but they’re happening and could be potentially long term if you don’t start weight restoring, or if you weight restore and then continue to drop again,” Dr. Eliscu said in an interview.

The findings, she said, really do highlight what anorexia can do to the brain.

“Adolescents need to know, anorexia can absolutely decrease the size of your brain in different areas; you’re not just losing weight in your belly and your thighs, you’re losing weight in the brain as well and that’s really concerning,” said Dr. Eliscu.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Eliscu report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) have notable shrinkage in key brain structures and these deficits are less severe in patients on the path to weight recovery, a new brain imaging study shows.

The reductions of cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and cortical surface area were “very pronounced in acutely underweight anorexia,” Stefan Ehrlich, MD, PhD, head of the Eating Disorder Treatment and Research Center, Technical University, Dresden, Germany, told this news organization.

Yet even a “partial weight gain brings some normalization of these shrinkages. From this it can be deduced that a fast/early normalization of weight is also very important for brain health,” said Dr. Ehrlich.

The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.
 

‘A wake-up call’

Researchers with the international ENIGMA Eating Disorders Working Group analyzed T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging scans for nearly 2,000 people with AN (including those in recovery) and healthy controls across 22 sites worldwide.

In the AN sample, reductions in cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and, to a lesser extent, cortical surface area, were “sizable (Cohen’s d up to 0.95), widespread, and co-localized with hub regions,” they report.

These reductions were two and four times larger than the abnormalities in brain size and shape seen in patients with other mental illnesses, the researchers note.

Noting the harmful impact of anorexia-related undernutrition on the brain, these deficits were associated with lower body mass index in the AN sample and were less severe in partially weight-restored patients – implying that, with appropriate early treatment and support, the brain might be able to repair itself, the investigators note.

“This really is a wake-up call, showing the need for early interventions for people with eating disorders,” Paul Thompson, PhD, author and lead scientist for the ENIGMA Consortium, said in a news release.

“The international scale of this work is extraordinary. Scientists from 22 centers worldwide pooled their brain scans to create the most detailed picture to date of how anorexia affects the brain,” Dr. Thompson added.

“The brain changes in anorexia were more severe than in other any psychiatric condition we have studied. Effects of treatments and interventions can now be evaluated, using these new brain maps as a reference,” he noted.
 

Immediate clinical implications

Reached for comment, Allison Eliscu, MD, chief of the division of adolescent medicine, department of pediatrics, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said the findings have immediate implications for clinical care.

“When we talk to our patients and the parents, a lot of them focus on things that they can see, such as the way they look. It adds a lot to the conversation to be able to say: You’re obviously not seeing these changes in the brain, but they’re happening and could be potentially long term if you don’t start weight restoring, or if you weight restore and then continue to drop again,” Dr. Eliscu said in an interview.

The findings, she said, really do highlight what anorexia can do to the brain.

“Adolescents need to know, anorexia can absolutely decrease the size of your brain in different areas; you’re not just losing weight in your belly and your thighs, you’re losing weight in the brain as well and that’s really concerning,” said Dr. Eliscu.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Eliscu report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) have notable shrinkage in key brain structures and these deficits are less severe in patients on the path to weight recovery, a new brain imaging study shows.

The reductions of cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and cortical surface area were “very pronounced in acutely underweight anorexia,” Stefan Ehrlich, MD, PhD, head of the Eating Disorder Treatment and Research Center, Technical University, Dresden, Germany, told this news organization.

Yet even a “partial weight gain brings some normalization of these shrinkages. From this it can be deduced that a fast/early normalization of weight is also very important for brain health,” said Dr. Ehrlich.

The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.
 

‘A wake-up call’

Researchers with the international ENIGMA Eating Disorders Working Group analyzed T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging scans for nearly 2,000 people with AN (including those in recovery) and healthy controls across 22 sites worldwide.

In the AN sample, reductions in cortical thickness, subcortical volumes, and, to a lesser extent, cortical surface area, were “sizable (Cohen’s d up to 0.95), widespread, and co-localized with hub regions,” they report.

These reductions were two and four times larger than the abnormalities in brain size and shape seen in patients with other mental illnesses, the researchers note.

Noting the harmful impact of anorexia-related undernutrition on the brain, these deficits were associated with lower body mass index in the AN sample and were less severe in partially weight-restored patients – implying that, with appropriate early treatment and support, the brain might be able to repair itself, the investigators note.

“This really is a wake-up call, showing the need for early interventions for people with eating disorders,” Paul Thompson, PhD, author and lead scientist for the ENIGMA Consortium, said in a news release.

“The international scale of this work is extraordinary. Scientists from 22 centers worldwide pooled their brain scans to create the most detailed picture to date of how anorexia affects the brain,” Dr. Thompson added.

“The brain changes in anorexia were more severe than in other any psychiatric condition we have studied. Effects of treatments and interventions can now be evaluated, using these new brain maps as a reference,” he noted.
 

Immediate clinical implications

Reached for comment, Allison Eliscu, MD, chief of the division of adolescent medicine, department of pediatrics, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said the findings have immediate implications for clinical care.

“When we talk to our patients and the parents, a lot of them focus on things that they can see, such as the way they look. It adds a lot to the conversation to be able to say: You’re obviously not seeing these changes in the brain, but they’re happening and could be potentially long term if you don’t start weight restoring, or if you weight restore and then continue to drop again,” Dr. Eliscu said in an interview.

The findings, she said, really do highlight what anorexia can do to the brain.

“Adolescents need to know, anorexia can absolutely decrease the size of your brain in different areas; you’re not just losing weight in your belly and your thighs, you’re losing weight in the brain as well and that’s really concerning,” said Dr. Eliscu.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Eliscu report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Contrary to previous research findings, the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to an increased headache burden in teens.

Investigators found factors contributing to headache for preteens and teens during the pandemic included increased screen time for online learning, depression, anxiety, female sex, and weight gain.

“The stressors and pressures of the pandemic may have eventually taken their toll,” lead author Ayşe Nur Özdağ Acarli, MD, Ermenek State Hospital, department of neurology, Karaman, Turkey, told this news organization.

“Limiting screen time and providing more psychosocial supports would help lessen the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents with headache.”

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2022.
 

Most common neurological problem in kids

Headache is the most common neurological problem in children and adolescents. Potential factors contributing to headache in this population include lack of sleep and physical activity, mental health problems, and socioeconomic conditions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a “striking” impact on every aspect of life for young people, said Dr. Acarli.

Some studies reported an improvement in headache prevalence among adolescents during COVID-19, which was attributed to less school-related stress. However, said Dr. Acarli in her personal clinical experience, young patients suffered more frequent and severe headaches during the pandemic.

She noted previous research examining the impact of the pandemic on headache in youth was conducted only in the early days of the pandemic and examined shorter-term effects. Research examining the long-term effects of the pandemic on headache in this patient population has been “lacking,” she said.

The study included 851 participants aged 10-18 years (mean age 14.9 years and 62% female) who were seen at a neurology or pediatric outpatient clinic from August-December 2021. The study excluded subjects with neurological problems, intellectual deficits, autism spectrum disorder, and epilepsy.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires providing data on demographics, exposure to COVID-19, and electronics, as well as information on depressive symptoms as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and anxiety symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and COVID-related anxiety.

“We used two distinct scales for anxiety: one for generalized anxiety and the other for COVID-related anxiety,” said Dr. Acarli.

Of the total study population, 756 (89%) reported headaches. This headache prevalence in children and adolescents is like that found in other studies.

Dr. Acarli noted several differences in the headache group versus the non-headache group. The female/male ratio was 2:1 versus 1:1, the mean age was 15.0 versus 14.4, and depression and generalized anxiety scores were significantly higher. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 history in those with and without headache.

Researchers categorized those with headache into four groups: worsening headaches (27%), improved headaches (3%), new onset headaches (10%), and stable headaches (61%).

Compared with the other groups, the worsened headache group included significantly more females and older individuals with more severe and frequent headaches. This group also had more participants reporting at least 15 headache attacks a month and using painkillers at least once a month.

The study showed headache severity was significantly increased with age, headache duration, depression, generalized anxiety (all P < .001), and COVID-19 anxiety (P < .01). Headache frequency, measured as attacks per month, was significantly increased with age, depression, and generalized anxiety (all P < .001).

Worsening headache outcomes during the pandemic were associated with longer exposure to computer screens (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.3; P < .01), lack of suitable conditions for online learning (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8; P < .001), depression (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .001); and COVID-19 anxiety (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; P < .01). Other contributing factors included school exams, living in a city, female sex, and weight gain.

There may be a link between COVID-related headaches and anxiety or depression, but it’s unclear what’s causing what. “We don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg,” said Dr. Acarli.
 

Headache triggers

Commenting for this news organization, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal, who co-chaired the session where the research was presented, said the information collected for the study was “extensive.”

Some results were expected, including the fact that patients with headaches were more anxious and depressed, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

“Anxiety and depression are frequent comorbidities of headache and can act as a triggering factor for headache attacks but can also be a consequence of intense or chronic pain,” she said.

She agreed the new results differ from those of studies carried out during the first pandemic lockdown, which showed an improvement in headache, but noted online learning was not fully implemented at that time, “so it was much like being on vacation.”

In addition to isolation, anxiety, and prolonged screen exposure, the lack of peer contact and fewer sports and leisure activities may also have contributed to worsening headaches during the COVID lockdown, but these were not explored in this study, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

The study was supported by the Global Migraine and Pain Society. The investigators and Dr. Gil-Gouveia report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to previous research findings, the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to an increased headache burden in teens.

Investigators found factors contributing to headache for preteens and teens during the pandemic included increased screen time for online learning, depression, anxiety, female sex, and weight gain.

“The stressors and pressures of the pandemic may have eventually taken their toll,” lead author Ayşe Nur Özdağ Acarli, MD, Ermenek State Hospital, department of neurology, Karaman, Turkey, told this news organization.

“Limiting screen time and providing more psychosocial supports would help lessen the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents with headache.”

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2022.
 

Most common neurological problem in kids

Headache is the most common neurological problem in children and adolescents. Potential factors contributing to headache in this population include lack of sleep and physical activity, mental health problems, and socioeconomic conditions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a “striking” impact on every aspect of life for young people, said Dr. Acarli.

Some studies reported an improvement in headache prevalence among adolescents during COVID-19, which was attributed to less school-related stress. However, said Dr. Acarli in her personal clinical experience, young patients suffered more frequent and severe headaches during the pandemic.

She noted previous research examining the impact of the pandemic on headache in youth was conducted only in the early days of the pandemic and examined shorter-term effects. Research examining the long-term effects of the pandemic on headache in this patient population has been “lacking,” she said.

The study included 851 participants aged 10-18 years (mean age 14.9 years and 62% female) who were seen at a neurology or pediatric outpatient clinic from August-December 2021. The study excluded subjects with neurological problems, intellectual deficits, autism spectrum disorder, and epilepsy.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires providing data on demographics, exposure to COVID-19, and electronics, as well as information on depressive symptoms as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and anxiety symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and COVID-related anxiety.

“We used two distinct scales for anxiety: one for generalized anxiety and the other for COVID-related anxiety,” said Dr. Acarli.

Of the total study population, 756 (89%) reported headaches. This headache prevalence in children and adolescents is like that found in other studies.

Dr. Acarli noted several differences in the headache group versus the non-headache group. The female/male ratio was 2:1 versus 1:1, the mean age was 15.0 versus 14.4, and depression and generalized anxiety scores were significantly higher. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 history in those with and without headache.

Researchers categorized those with headache into four groups: worsening headaches (27%), improved headaches (3%), new onset headaches (10%), and stable headaches (61%).

Compared with the other groups, the worsened headache group included significantly more females and older individuals with more severe and frequent headaches. This group also had more participants reporting at least 15 headache attacks a month and using painkillers at least once a month.

The study showed headache severity was significantly increased with age, headache duration, depression, generalized anxiety (all P < .001), and COVID-19 anxiety (P < .01). Headache frequency, measured as attacks per month, was significantly increased with age, depression, and generalized anxiety (all P < .001).

Worsening headache outcomes during the pandemic were associated with longer exposure to computer screens (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.3; P < .01), lack of suitable conditions for online learning (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8; P < .001), depression (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .001); and COVID-19 anxiety (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; P < .01). Other contributing factors included school exams, living in a city, female sex, and weight gain.

There may be a link between COVID-related headaches and anxiety or depression, but it’s unclear what’s causing what. “We don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg,” said Dr. Acarli.
 

Headache triggers

Commenting for this news organization, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal, who co-chaired the session where the research was presented, said the information collected for the study was “extensive.”

Some results were expected, including the fact that patients with headaches were more anxious and depressed, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

“Anxiety and depression are frequent comorbidities of headache and can act as a triggering factor for headache attacks but can also be a consequence of intense or chronic pain,” she said.

She agreed the new results differ from those of studies carried out during the first pandemic lockdown, which showed an improvement in headache, but noted online learning was not fully implemented at that time, “so it was much like being on vacation.”

In addition to isolation, anxiety, and prolonged screen exposure, the lack of peer contact and fewer sports and leisure activities may also have contributed to worsening headaches during the COVID lockdown, but these were not explored in this study, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

The study was supported by the Global Migraine and Pain Society. The investigators and Dr. Gil-Gouveia report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to previous research findings, the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to an increased headache burden in teens.

Investigators found factors contributing to headache for preteens and teens during the pandemic included increased screen time for online learning, depression, anxiety, female sex, and weight gain.

“The stressors and pressures of the pandemic may have eventually taken their toll,” lead author Ayşe Nur Özdağ Acarli, MD, Ermenek State Hospital, department of neurology, Karaman, Turkey, told this news organization.

“Limiting screen time and providing more psychosocial supports would help lessen the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents with headache.”

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2022.
 

Most common neurological problem in kids

Headache is the most common neurological problem in children and adolescents. Potential factors contributing to headache in this population include lack of sleep and physical activity, mental health problems, and socioeconomic conditions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a “striking” impact on every aspect of life for young people, said Dr. Acarli.

Some studies reported an improvement in headache prevalence among adolescents during COVID-19, which was attributed to less school-related stress. However, said Dr. Acarli in her personal clinical experience, young patients suffered more frequent and severe headaches during the pandemic.

She noted previous research examining the impact of the pandemic on headache in youth was conducted only in the early days of the pandemic and examined shorter-term effects. Research examining the long-term effects of the pandemic on headache in this patient population has been “lacking,” she said.

The study included 851 participants aged 10-18 years (mean age 14.9 years and 62% female) who were seen at a neurology or pediatric outpatient clinic from August-December 2021. The study excluded subjects with neurological problems, intellectual deficits, autism spectrum disorder, and epilepsy.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires providing data on demographics, exposure to COVID-19, and electronics, as well as information on depressive symptoms as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and anxiety symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and COVID-related anxiety.

“We used two distinct scales for anxiety: one for generalized anxiety and the other for COVID-related anxiety,” said Dr. Acarli.

Of the total study population, 756 (89%) reported headaches. This headache prevalence in children and adolescents is like that found in other studies.

Dr. Acarli noted several differences in the headache group versus the non-headache group. The female/male ratio was 2:1 versus 1:1, the mean age was 15.0 versus 14.4, and depression and generalized anxiety scores were significantly higher. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 history in those with and without headache.

Researchers categorized those with headache into four groups: worsening headaches (27%), improved headaches (3%), new onset headaches (10%), and stable headaches (61%).

Compared with the other groups, the worsened headache group included significantly more females and older individuals with more severe and frequent headaches. This group also had more participants reporting at least 15 headache attacks a month and using painkillers at least once a month.

The study showed headache severity was significantly increased with age, headache duration, depression, generalized anxiety (all P < .001), and COVID-19 anxiety (P < .01). Headache frequency, measured as attacks per month, was significantly increased with age, depression, and generalized anxiety (all P < .001).

Worsening headache outcomes during the pandemic were associated with longer exposure to computer screens (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.3; P < .01), lack of suitable conditions for online learning (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8; P < .001), depression (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .001); and COVID-19 anxiety (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; P < .01). Other contributing factors included school exams, living in a city, female sex, and weight gain.

There may be a link between COVID-related headaches and anxiety or depression, but it’s unclear what’s causing what. “We don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg,” said Dr. Acarli.
 

Headache triggers

Commenting for this news organization, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal, who co-chaired the session where the research was presented, said the information collected for the study was “extensive.”

Some results were expected, including the fact that patients with headaches were more anxious and depressed, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

“Anxiety and depression are frequent comorbidities of headache and can act as a triggering factor for headache attacks but can also be a consequence of intense or chronic pain,” she said.

She agreed the new results differ from those of studies carried out during the first pandemic lockdown, which showed an improvement in headache, but noted online learning was not fully implemented at that time, “so it was much like being on vacation.”

In addition to isolation, anxiety, and prolonged screen exposure, the lack of peer contact and fewer sports and leisure activities may also have contributed to worsening headaches during the COVID lockdown, but these were not explored in this study, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

The study was supported by the Global Migraine and Pain Society. The investigators and Dr. Gil-Gouveia report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has unveiled a 5-year strategy aimed at improving and extending the lives of people with rare neurodegenerative diseases.

The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.

“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.

“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
 

Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward

The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.

The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.

Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.

The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.

The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has unveiled a 5-year strategy aimed at improving and extending the lives of people with rare neurodegenerative diseases.

The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.

“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.

“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
 

Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward

The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.

The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.

Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.

The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.

The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has unveiled a 5-year strategy aimed at improving and extending the lives of people with rare neurodegenerative diseases.

The agency’s Action Plan for Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases including Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) aims to advance the development of safe and effective medical products and facilitate patient access to novel treatments.

“The effects of rare neurodegenerative diseases are devastating, with very few effective therapeutic options available to patients. We recognize the urgent need for new treatments that can both improve and extend the lives of people diagnosed with these diseases,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

“To face that challenge and to accelerate drug development, we need innovative approaches to better understand these diseases while also building on current scientific and research capabilities,” Dr. Califf acknowledged.

“This action plan, especially including the use of public-private partnerships and direct involvement of patients, will ensure the FDA is working toward meeting the task set forth by Congress to enhance the quality of life for those suffering by facilitating access to new therapies,” Dr. Califf added.
 

Blueprint to ‘aggressively’ move forward

The action plan represents a “blueprint” for how the agency will “aggressively” move forward to address challenges in drug development for rare neurodegenerative diseases to improve patient health, the FDA said.

The plan was created in accordance with provisions in the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS) that President Biden signed into law in late 2021.

Targeted activities include establishing the FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Diseases Task Force and the public-private partnership for rare neurodegenerative diseases, developing disease-specific science strategies over the next 5 years, and leveraging ongoing FDA regulatory science efforts.

The ALS Science Strategy is part of the plan focused specifically on ALS. It provides a “forward-leaning” framework for FDA activities, which include efforts to improve characterization of disease pathogenesis and natural history, boost clinical trial infrastructure and agility to enable early selection of promising therapeutic candidates for further development, optimize clinical trial design, improve access to the trials, streamline clinical trial operations, and reduce the time and cost of drug development.

The FDA says patient engagement, public workshops, research projects, coordination across FDA centers and offices, and collaboration with the National Institutes of Health will be key to the success of implementation of the ALS Science Strategy.

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

Acupuncture deep needling provides significant, long-term relief from chronic tension type headache (TTH), new research suggests. Result of a randomized trial showed that though the majority of participants reported some relief from TTH after 8 weeks of acupuncture treatment, those who received needling at a depth of 12.5-20.0 mm reported the greatest reduction in headache frequency and severity.

At this depth, acupuncture promotes deqi sensation, a feeling of numbness, soreness, heaviness, or irritating pain in the needling site that is considered key to successful acupuncture treatment in traditional Chinese acupuncture theory.

“Our study showed that deqi sensation could enhance the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic TTH, and the effect of acupuncture lasted at least 6 months when the treatment was stopped,” said co-investigator Ying Li, MD, PhD, The Third Hospital/Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Deqi sensation key

TTH is the most common type of headache, with a lifetime prevalence of up to 78% in some studies. The pain is often described as throbbing or a vice-like tightness on both sides of the head. TTH is considered chronic when it occurs at least 15 days a month.

Previous studies have suggested that acupuncture can offer relief from headache pain, but specific information on TTH, especially chronic TTH, has been lacking.

To address the issue, researchers designed a parallel-design, patient-and-assessor blinded randomized controlled trial with 218 individuals with a history of chronic TTH. All were untreated with prophylactic treatment in the previous 3 months.

The treatment group (n = 110) received 20 sessions of true acupuncture (TA) over 8 weeks. This included three sessions per week in the first 4 weeks and two sessions per week in the last 4 weeks. The depth of needling at each point ranged from 12.5 to 20 mm, which is needed to achieve deqi sensation.

The control group (n = 108) received superficial acupuncture (SA) on the same schedule as the TA group and at traditional acupuncture points. However, this was done at a maximum depth of 2 mm, which is not deep enough for deqi sensation.

At week 16, 68.2% of the participants receiving TA reported a greater than 50% reduction in monthly headache days, compared with 48.1% of those receiving SA (odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).

Mean monthly headache days decreased from 20.38 days at baseline to 7.48 days at week 32 in the TA group versus 22.6 days at baseline to 11.94 days in the SA group.

Headache intensity and severity decreased in both groups, although those who achieved deqi sensation reported the most improvement.

Only four patients reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and none requiring treatment.

Patients in both groups reported some pain relief, suggesting that those who are not comfortable with deqi sensation may still benefit from superficial acupuncture, although to a lesser extent, Dr. Li said.

“We assume that the point-specific effect and placebo effect were combined to give the patients relief of headaches,” Dr. Li added. “Further, the effect of deqi sensation added more treatment effect. This might be explained by gate-control theory or other unknown mechanisms.”
 

Deeper understanding?

Commenting on the research, Jennifer Bickel, MD, a senior member of neurology at Moffit Cancer Center and professor of oncologic sciences at University of South Florida, Tampa, said that the study provides a deeper understanding of acupuncture’s efficacy for chronic TTH, which could aid clinicians who are unfamiliar with the therapy or when and how to refer treatment.

“This study provides a more descriptive outline for what type of acupuncture treatment and duration can be effective for patients so doctors can prep patients on what to expect and so doctors can better assess if patients received appropriate acupuncture for their headaches,” said Dr. Bickel, who was not involved with the research.

However, she noted that the acupuncture sites and techniques did not vary during the trial. Although that makes sense for a controlled study, it may not reflect real-world clinical practice, she added.

“The downside is that the study didn’t fully reflect that most acupuncturists in clinical practice would alter treatments during the 20 sessions based on the patient’s response and accompanying symptoms or comorbidities,” Dr. Bickel said.

The study also lacked information on medication overuse headache or patients’ prior history of TTH treatments.

“This could be helpful to understand which patients in clinical practice are most likely to benefit from treatment,” Dr. Bickel said.

Study authors received funding from the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Li, Dr. Bickel, and Dr. Vickers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Acupuncture deep needling provides significant, long-term relief from chronic tension type headache (TTH), new research suggests. Result of a randomized trial showed that though the majority of participants reported some relief from TTH after 8 weeks of acupuncture treatment, those who received needling at a depth of 12.5-20.0 mm reported the greatest reduction in headache frequency and severity.

At this depth, acupuncture promotes deqi sensation, a feeling of numbness, soreness, heaviness, or irritating pain in the needling site that is considered key to successful acupuncture treatment in traditional Chinese acupuncture theory.

“Our study showed that deqi sensation could enhance the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic TTH, and the effect of acupuncture lasted at least 6 months when the treatment was stopped,” said co-investigator Ying Li, MD, PhD, The Third Hospital/Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Deqi sensation key

TTH is the most common type of headache, with a lifetime prevalence of up to 78% in some studies. The pain is often described as throbbing or a vice-like tightness on both sides of the head. TTH is considered chronic when it occurs at least 15 days a month.

Previous studies have suggested that acupuncture can offer relief from headache pain, but specific information on TTH, especially chronic TTH, has been lacking.

To address the issue, researchers designed a parallel-design, patient-and-assessor blinded randomized controlled trial with 218 individuals with a history of chronic TTH. All were untreated with prophylactic treatment in the previous 3 months.

The treatment group (n = 110) received 20 sessions of true acupuncture (TA) over 8 weeks. This included three sessions per week in the first 4 weeks and two sessions per week in the last 4 weeks. The depth of needling at each point ranged from 12.5 to 20 mm, which is needed to achieve deqi sensation.

The control group (n = 108) received superficial acupuncture (SA) on the same schedule as the TA group and at traditional acupuncture points. However, this was done at a maximum depth of 2 mm, which is not deep enough for deqi sensation.

At week 16, 68.2% of the participants receiving TA reported a greater than 50% reduction in monthly headache days, compared with 48.1% of those receiving SA (odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).

Mean monthly headache days decreased from 20.38 days at baseline to 7.48 days at week 32 in the TA group versus 22.6 days at baseline to 11.94 days in the SA group.

Headache intensity and severity decreased in both groups, although those who achieved deqi sensation reported the most improvement.

Only four patients reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and none requiring treatment.

Patients in both groups reported some pain relief, suggesting that those who are not comfortable with deqi sensation may still benefit from superficial acupuncture, although to a lesser extent, Dr. Li said.

“We assume that the point-specific effect and placebo effect were combined to give the patients relief of headaches,” Dr. Li added. “Further, the effect of deqi sensation added more treatment effect. This might be explained by gate-control theory or other unknown mechanisms.”
 

Deeper understanding?

Commenting on the research, Jennifer Bickel, MD, a senior member of neurology at Moffit Cancer Center and professor of oncologic sciences at University of South Florida, Tampa, said that the study provides a deeper understanding of acupuncture’s efficacy for chronic TTH, which could aid clinicians who are unfamiliar with the therapy or when and how to refer treatment.

“This study provides a more descriptive outline for what type of acupuncture treatment and duration can be effective for patients so doctors can prep patients on what to expect and so doctors can better assess if patients received appropriate acupuncture for their headaches,” said Dr. Bickel, who was not involved with the research.

However, she noted that the acupuncture sites and techniques did not vary during the trial. Although that makes sense for a controlled study, it may not reflect real-world clinical practice, she added.

“The downside is that the study didn’t fully reflect that most acupuncturists in clinical practice would alter treatments during the 20 sessions based on the patient’s response and accompanying symptoms or comorbidities,” Dr. Bickel said.

The study also lacked information on medication overuse headache or patients’ prior history of TTH treatments.

“This could be helpful to understand which patients in clinical practice are most likely to benefit from treatment,” Dr. Bickel said.

Study authors received funding from the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Li, Dr. Bickel, and Dr. Vickers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Acupuncture deep needling provides significant, long-term relief from chronic tension type headache (TTH), new research suggests. Result of a randomized trial showed that though the majority of participants reported some relief from TTH after 8 weeks of acupuncture treatment, those who received needling at a depth of 12.5-20.0 mm reported the greatest reduction in headache frequency and severity.

At this depth, acupuncture promotes deqi sensation, a feeling of numbness, soreness, heaviness, or irritating pain in the needling site that is considered key to successful acupuncture treatment in traditional Chinese acupuncture theory.

“Our study showed that deqi sensation could enhance the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic TTH, and the effect of acupuncture lasted at least 6 months when the treatment was stopped,” said co-investigator Ying Li, MD, PhD, The Third Hospital/Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Deqi sensation key

TTH is the most common type of headache, with a lifetime prevalence of up to 78% in some studies. The pain is often described as throbbing or a vice-like tightness on both sides of the head. TTH is considered chronic when it occurs at least 15 days a month.

Previous studies have suggested that acupuncture can offer relief from headache pain, but specific information on TTH, especially chronic TTH, has been lacking.

To address the issue, researchers designed a parallel-design, patient-and-assessor blinded randomized controlled trial with 218 individuals with a history of chronic TTH. All were untreated with prophylactic treatment in the previous 3 months.

The treatment group (n = 110) received 20 sessions of true acupuncture (TA) over 8 weeks. This included three sessions per week in the first 4 weeks and two sessions per week in the last 4 weeks. The depth of needling at each point ranged from 12.5 to 20 mm, which is needed to achieve deqi sensation.

The control group (n = 108) received superficial acupuncture (SA) on the same schedule as the TA group and at traditional acupuncture points. However, this was done at a maximum depth of 2 mm, which is not deep enough for deqi sensation.

At week 16, 68.2% of the participants receiving TA reported a greater than 50% reduction in monthly headache days, compared with 48.1% of those receiving SA (odds ratio, 2.65; P < .001).

Mean monthly headache days decreased from 20.38 days at baseline to 7.48 days at week 32 in the TA group versus 22.6 days at baseline to 11.94 days in the SA group.

Headache intensity and severity decreased in both groups, although those who achieved deqi sensation reported the most improvement.

Only four patients reported adverse effects, all of which were mild and none requiring treatment.

Patients in both groups reported some pain relief, suggesting that those who are not comfortable with deqi sensation may still benefit from superficial acupuncture, although to a lesser extent, Dr. Li said.

“We assume that the point-specific effect and placebo effect were combined to give the patients relief of headaches,” Dr. Li added. “Further, the effect of deqi sensation added more treatment effect. This might be explained by gate-control theory or other unknown mechanisms.”
 

Deeper understanding?

Commenting on the research, Jennifer Bickel, MD, a senior member of neurology at Moffit Cancer Center and professor of oncologic sciences at University of South Florida, Tampa, said that the study provides a deeper understanding of acupuncture’s efficacy for chronic TTH, which could aid clinicians who are unfamiliar with the therapy or when and how to refer treatment.

“This study provides a more descriptive outline for what type of acupuncture treatment and duration can be effective for patients so doctors can prep patients on what to expect and so doctors can better assess if patients received appropriate acupuncture for their headaches,” said Dr. Bickel, who was not involved with the research.

However, she noted that the acupuncture sites and techniques did not vary during the trial. Although that makes sense for a controlled study, it may not reflect real-world clinical practice, she added.

“The downside is that the study didn’t fully reflect that most acupuncturists in clinical practice would alter treatments during the 20 sessions based on the patient’s response and accompanying symptoms or comorbidities,” Dr. Bickel said.

The study also lacked information on medication overuse headache or patients’ prior history of TTH treatments.

“This could be helpful to understand which patients in clinical practice are most likely to benefit from treatment,” Dr. Bickel said.

Study authors received funding from the Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Li, Dr. Bickel, and Dr. Vickers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.

But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

• 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
• 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
• 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
• 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding  
• 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI

Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).

The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.

For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.

“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”

Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.