Article

Sirisha Manyam, DO, eagerly looks forward to attending Association of VA Hematology and Oncology (AVAHO) 2023 and participating in discussion concerning two central topics: women's health and clinician wellness. Recognizing and meeting the distinctive stressors faced by healthcare workers, which have produced alarming rates of burnout, is an apt priority for Veterans Affairs systems, Dr Maryam suggests, and one which is paralleled by the need to engage the unique challenges faced by women, specifically the cluster of considerations surrounding breast cancer treatment.

Sirisha Manyam, DO, eagerly looks forward to attending Association of VA Hematology and Oncology (AVAHO) 2023 and participating in discussion concerning two central topics: women's health and clinician wellness. Recognizing and meeting the distinctive stressors faced by healthcare workers, which have produced alarming rates of burnout, is an apt priority for Veterans Affairs systems, Dr Maryam suggests, and one which is paralleled by the need to engage the unique challenges faced by women, specifically the cluster of considerations surrounding breast cancer treatment.

Sirisha Manyam, DO, eagerly looks forward to attending Association of VA Hematology and Oncology (AVAHO) 2023 and participating in discussion concerning two central topics: women's health and clinician wellness. Recognizing and meeting the distinctive stressors faced by healthcare workers, which have produced alarming rates of burnout, is an apt priority for Veterans Affairs systems, Dr Maryam suggests, and one which is paralleled by the need to engage the unique challenges faced by women, specifically the cluster of considerations surrounding breast cancer treatment.

Timothy O'Brien, MD, shares his expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO conference. Dr O'Brien highlights four key areas of interest: networking with providers from other VA systems; creating more clinical trial opportunities; exploring educational sessions on topics like AI in oncology and geriatric oncology; and fostering team building within the local VA group. With an area of focus in malignant hematology, particularly multiple myeloma, Dr O'Brien sees learning opportunities within the education sessions on geriatric oncology. Considering that the average age of patients with multiple myeloma at his institution is 70 years, he looks forward to gaining valuable strategies for geriatric assessment.

Timothy O'Brien, MD, shares his expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO conference. Dr O'Brien highlights four key areas of interest: networking with providers from other VA systems; creating more clinical trial opportunities; exploring educational sessions on topics like AI in oncology and geriatric oncology; and fostering team building within the local VA group. With an area of focus in malignant hematology, particularly multiple myeloma, Dr O'Brien sees learning opportunities within the education sessions on geriatric oncology. Considering that the average age of patients with multiple myeloma at his institution is 70 years, he looks forward to gaining valuable strategies for geriatric assessment.

Timothy O'Brien, MD, shares his expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO conference. Dr O'Brien highlights four key areas of interest: networking with providers from other VA systems; creating more clinical trial opportunities; exploring educational sessions on topics like AI in oncology and geriatric oncology; and fostering team building within the local VA group. With an area of focus in malignant hematology, particularly multiple myeloma, Dr O'Brien sees learning opportunities within the education sessions on geriatric oncology. Considering that the average age of patients with multiple myeloma at his institution is 70 years, he looks forward to gaining valuable strategies for geriatric assessment.

Soo Park, MD, discusses her expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO meeting in Chicago. Two items on the agenda particularly stand out: the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology and the importance of cancer patient navigation. Dr Park acknowledges AI's potential to transform cancer diagnostics and drug discovery, particularly in aiding molecular profiling. Additionally, she highlights the value of cancer patient navigators in optimizing veteran care, particularly in the setting of geriatric oncology.

Soo Park, MD, discusses her expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO meeting in Chicago. Two items on the agenda particularly stand out: the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology and the importance of cancer patient navigation. Dr Park acknowledges AI's potential to transform cancer diagnostics and drug discovery, particularly in aiding molecular profiling. Additionally, she highlights the value of cancer patient navigators in optimizing veteran care, particularly in the setting of geriatric oncology.

Soo Park, MD, discusses her expectations for the upcoming 2023 AVAHO meeting in Chicago. Two items on the agenda particularly stand out: the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology and the importance of cancer patient navigation. Dr Park acknowledges AI's potential to transform cancer diagnostics and drug discovery, particularly in aiding molecular profiling. Additionally, she highlights the value of cancer patient navigators in optimizing veteran care, particularly in the setting of geriatric oncology.

Endometrial ablation continues to be performed in significant numbers in the United States, with an estimated 500,000 cases annually. Several nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation devices have been approved for use, and some are now discontinued. The newest endometrial ablation therapy to gain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and to have published outcomes is the Cerene cryotherapy ablation device (Channel Medsystems, Inc). The results of 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study were published last year, and we have chosen to review these long-term data in addition to that of a second study in which investigators assessed the ability to access the endometrial cavity postcryoablation. We believe this is important because of concerns about the inability to access the endometrial cavity after ablation, as well as the potential for delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. It is interesting that 2 publications simultaneously reviewed the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation within the past 12 months, and we therefore present those findings as they provide valuable information.

Our second focus in this year’s Update is to provide additional information about the burgeoning data on gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. We review evidence on linzagolix from the PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 trials and longer-term data on relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine fibroids.

Three-year follow-up after endometrial cryoablation with the Cerene device found high patient satisfaction, low hysterectomy rates

Curlin HL, Cintron LC, Anderson TL. A prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Cerene device to treat heavy menstrual bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28;899-908.

Curlin HL, Anderson TL. Endometrial cryoablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study. Int J Womens Health. 2022;14:1083-1092.
 

The 12-month data on the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Cerene cryoablation device were published in 2021 in the CLARITY trial.¹ The 36-month outcomes were published in 2022 and showed sustained clinical effects through month 36 with a low risk of adverse outcomes.² The interesting aspect of this trial is that although the amenorrhea rate was relatively low at 12 months (6.5%), it continued to remain relatively low compared with rates found with other devices, but the amenorrhea rate increased at 36 months (14.4%). This was the percentage of patients who reported, “I no longer get my period.”

Patient satisfaction was high

Despite a relatively low amenorrhea rate, study participants had a high satisfaction rate and a low 3-year hysterectomy rate. Eighty-five percent of the participants were satisfied or very satisfied, and the cumulative hysterectomy rate was low at 5%.

The overall reintervention rate was 8.7%. Six patients were treated with medications, 2 patients underwent repeat endometrial ablation, 1 received a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device, and 12 underwent hysterectomy.

At 36 months, 201 of the original 242 participants were available for assessment. Unfortunately, 5 pregnancies were reported through the 6-month posttreatment period, which emphasizes the importance of having reliable contraception. However, there were no reports of hematometra or postablation tubal sterilization syndrome (PATSS).

Effect on bleeding was long term

The main finding of the CLARITY study is that the Cerene cryoablation device appears to have a relatively stable effect on bleedingfor the first 3 years after therapy, with minimal risk of hematometra and PATSS. What we find interesting is that despite Cerene cryoablation having one of the lowest amenorrhea rates, it not only had a satisfaction rate in line with that of other devices but also had a low hysterectomy rate—only 5%—at 3 years.

The study authors pointed out that there is a lack of scarring within the endometrial cavity with the Cerene device. Some may find less endometrial scarring worth a low amenorrhea rate in the context of a favorable satisfaction rate. This begs the question, how well can the endometrial cavity be assessed? For answers, keep reading.

Can the endometrial cavity be reliably accessed after Cerene cryoablation?

Endometrial ablation has been associated with intracavitary scarring that results in hematometra, PATSS, and a concern for difficulty in performing an adequate endometrial assessment in patients who develop postablation abnormal uterine bleeding.

In a prospective study, 230 participants (of an initial 242) treated with Cerene cyroablation were studied with hysteroscopic evaluation of the endometrial cavity 12 months after surgery.³ The uterine cavity was accessible in 98.7% of participants. The cavity was not accessible in 3 participants due to pain or cervical stenosis.

Visualization of the uterine cavity was possible by hysteroscopy in 92.7% of study participants (204 of 220), with 1 or both tubal ostia identified in 89.2%. Both tubal ostia were visible in 78.4% and 1 ostium was visible in 10.8%. The cavity was not visualized in 16 of the 220 patients (7.2%) due to intrauterine adhesions, technical difficulties, or menstruation. Also of note, 97 of the 230 participants available at the 12-month follow-up had undergone tubal sterilization before cryoablation and none reported symptoms of PATSS or hematometra, which may be considered surrogate markers for adhesions.

Continue to: Tissue effects differ with ablation technique...

Tissue effects differ with ablation technique

The study authors suggested that different tissue effects occur with freezing compared with heating ablation techniques. With freezing, over weeks to months the chronic inflammatory tissue is eventually replaced by a fibrous scar of collagen, with some preservation of the collagen matrix during tissue repair. This may be different from the charring and boiling of heated tissue that results in architectural tissue loss and may interfere with wound repair and tissue remodeling. Although the incidence of postoperative adhesions after endometrial ablation is not well studied, it is encouraging that most patients who received cryoablation with the Cerene device were able to undergo an evaluation of the endometrium without general anesthesia.

Key takeaway

The main idea from this study is that the endometrium can be assessed by office hysteroscopy in most patients who undergo cryoablation with the Cerene device. This may have advantages in terms of reducing the risk of PATSS and hematometra, and it may allow easier evaluation of the endometrium for patients who have postablation abnormal uterine bleeding. This begs the question, does intrauterine scarring influence the detection of endometrial cancer? For answers, keep reading.

Does endometrial ablation place a patient at higher risk for a delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer?

Radestad AF, Dahm-Kahler P, Holmberg E, et al. Long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial resection and ablation: a population based Swedish gynecologic cancer group (SweGCG) study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101:923-930.
 

Oderkerk TJ, van de Kar MRD, Cornel KMC, et al. Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32:1555-1560.

The answer to this question appears to be no, based on 2 different types of studies. One study was a 20-year population database review from Sweden,⁴ and the other was a systematic review of 11 cohort studies.⁵

Population-based study findings

The data from the Swedish population database is interesting because since 1994 all Swedish citizens have been allocated a unique personal identification number at birth or immigration that enables official registries and research. In reviewing their data from 1997 through 2017, Radestad and colleagues compared transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) and other forms of endometrial ablation against the Swedish National Patient Register data for endometrial cancer.⁴ They found no increase in the incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE (0.3%) or after endometrial ablation (0.02%) and suggested a significantly lower incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation.

This study is beneficial because it is the largest study to explore the long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE and endometrial ablation. The investigators hypothesized that, as an explanation for the difference between rates, ablation may burn deeper into the myometrium and treat adenomyosis compared with TCRE. However, they also were cautious to note that although this was a 20-year study, the incidence of endometrial carcinoma likely will reach a peak in the next few years.

Systematic review conclusions

In the systematic review, out of 890 publications from the authors’ database search, 11 articles were eventually included for review.⁵ A total of 29,102 patients with endometrial ablation were followed for a period of up to 25 years, and the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation varied from 0.0% to 1.6%. A total of 38 cases of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation have been described in the literature. Of those cases, bleeding was the most common presenting symptom of the disease. Endometrial sampling was successful in 89% of cases, and in 90% of cases, histological exam showed an early-stage endometrial adenocarcinoma.

Based on their review, the authors concluded that the incidence of endometrial cancer was not increased in patients who received endometrial ablation, and more importantly, there was no apparent delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation. They further suggested that diagnostic management with endometrial sampling did not appear to be a barrier.

Longer-term data for relugolix combination treatment of symptomatic uterine bleeding from fibroids shows sustained efficacy

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN, et al. Long-term relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140:920-930.

Relugolix combination therapy was previously reported to be effective for the treatment of fibroids based on the 24-week trials LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2. We now have information about longer-term therapy for up to 52 weeks of treatment.⁶

Relugolix combination therapy is a once-daily single tablet for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding thought to be due to uterine fibroids in premenopausal women. It is comprised of relugolix 40 mg (a GnRH antagonist), estradiol 1.0 mg, and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg.

Continue to: Extension study showed sustained efficacy...

 

 

Extension study showed sustained efficacy

The study by Al-Hendy and colleagues showed that the relugolix combination not only was well tolerated but also that there was sustained improvement in heavy bleeding, with the average patient having an approximately 90% decrease in menstrual bleeding from baseline.⁶ It was noted that 70.6% of patients achieved amenorrhea over the last 35 days of treatment.

Importantly, the treatment effect was independent of race, body mass index, baseline menstrual blood loss, and uterine fibroid volume. The bone mineral density (BMD) change trajectory was similar to what was observed in the pivotal study. No new safety concerns were identified, and BMD generally was preserved.

Linzagolix is the newest GnRH antagonist to be studied in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Donnez J, Taylor HS, Stewart EA, et al. Linzagolix with and without hormonal add-back therapy for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: two randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2022;400:896-907.

At the time of this writing, linzagolix was not approved by the FDA. The results of the PRIMROSE 1 (P1) and PRIMROSE 2 (P2) trials were published last year as 2 identical 52-week randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.⁷ The difference between the development of linzagolix as a GnRH antagonist and other similar medications is the strategy of potential partial hypothalamic pituitary ovarian axis suppression at 100 mg versus complete suppression at 200 mg. In this trial by Donnez and colleagues, both linzagolix doses were evaluated with and without add-back hormonal therapy and also were compared with placebo in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio.⁷

Study details and results

To be eligible for this study, participants had to have heavy menstrual bleeding, defined as more than 80 mL for at least 2 cycles, and have at least 1 fibroid that was 2 cm in diameter or multiple small fibroids with the calculated uterine volume of more than 200 cm³. No fibroid larger than 12 cm in diameter was included.

The primary end point was a menstrual blood loss of 80 mL or less and a 50% or more reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline in the 28 days before week 24. Uterine fibroid volume reduction and a safety assessment, including BMD assessment, also were studied.

In the P1 trial, which was conducted in US sites, the response rate for the primary objective was 56.4% in the linzagolix 100-mg group, 66.4% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 71.4% in the 200-mg group, and 75.5% in the 200-mg plus add-back group, compared with 35.0% in the placebo group.

In the P2 trial, which included sites in both Europe and the United States, the response rates were 56.7% in the 100-mg group, 77.2% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 77.7% in the 200-mg group, and 93.9% in the 200-mg plus add-back therapy group, compared with 29.4% in the placebo group. Thus, in both trials a significantly higher proportion of menstrual reduction occurred in all linzagolix treatment groups compared with placebo.

As expected, the incidence of hot flushes was the highest in participants taking the linzagolix 200-mg dose without add-back hormonal therapy, with hot flushes occurring in 35% (P1) and 32% (P2) of patients, compared with all other groups, which was 3% to 14%. All treatment groups showed improvement in quality-of-life scores compared with placebo. Of note, to achieve reduction of fibroid volume in the 40% to 50% range, this was observed consistently only with the linzagolix 200-mg alone dose.

Linzagolix effect on bone

Decreases in BMD appeared to be dose dependent, as lumbar spine losses of up to 4% were noted with the linzgolix 200-mg dose, and a 2% loss was observed with the 100-mg dose at 24 weeks. However, these were improved with add-back therapy. There were continued BMD decreases at 52 weeks, with up to 2.4% with 100 mg of linzagolix and up to 1.5% with 100 mg plus add-back therapy, and up to 2% with 200 mg of linzagolix plus add-back therapy. ●

Endometrial ablation continues to be performed in significant numbers in the United States, with an estimated 500,000 cases annually. Several nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation devices have been approved for use, and some are now discontinued. The newest endometrial ablation therapy to gain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and to have published outcomes is the Cerene cryotherapy ablation device (Channel Medsystems, Inc). The results of 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study were published last year, and we have chosen to review these long-term data in addition to that of a second study in which investigators assessed the ability to access the endometrial cavity postcryoablation. We believe this is important because of concerns about the inability to access the endometrial cavity after ablation, as well as the potential for delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. It is interesting that 2 publications simultaneously reviewed the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation within the past 12 months, and we therefore present those findings as they provide valuable information.

Our second focus in this year’s Update is to provide additional information about the burgeoning data on gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. We review evidence on linzagolix from the PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 trials and longer-term data on relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine fibroids.

Three-year follow-up after endometrial cryoablation with the Cerene device found high patient satisfaction, low hysterectomy rates

Curlin HL, Cintron LC, Anderson TL. A prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Cerene device to treat heavy menstrual bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28;899-908.

Curlin HL, Anderson TL. Endometrial cryoablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study. Int J Womens Health. 2022;14:1083-1092.
 

The 12-month data on the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Cerene cryoablation device were published in 2021 in the CLARITY trial.¹ The 36-month outcomes were published in 2022 and showed sustained clinical effects through month 36 with a low risk of adverse outcomes.² The interesting aspect of this trial is that although the amenorrhea rate was relatively low at 12 months (6.5%), it continued to remain relatively low compared with rates found with other devices, but the amenorrhea rate increased at 36 months (14.4%). This was the percentage of patients who reported, “I no longer get my period.”

Patient satisfaction was high

Despite a relatively low amenorrhea rate, study participants had a high satisfaction rate and a low 3-year hysterectomy rate. Eighty-five percent of the participants were satisfied or very satisfied, and the cumulative hysterectomy rate was low at 5%.

The overall reintervention rate was 8.7%. Six patients were treated with medications, 2 patients underwent repeat endometrial ablation, 1 received a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device, and 12 underwent hysterectomy.

At 36 months, 201 of the original 242 participants were available for assessment. Unfortunately, 5 pregnancies were reported through the 6-month posttreatment period, which emphasizes the importance of having reliable contraception. However, there were no reports of hematometra or postablation tubal sterilization syndrome (PATSS).

Effect on bleeding was long term

The main finding of the CLARITY study is that the Cerene cryoablation device appears to have a relatively stable effect on bleedingfor the first 3 years after therapy, with minimal risk of hematometra and PATSS. What we find interesting is that despite Cerene cryoablation having one of the lowest amenorrhea rates, it not only had a satisfaction rate in line with that of other devices but also had a low hysterectomy rate—only 5%—at 3 years.

The study authors pointed out that there is a lack of scarring within the endometrial cavity with the Cerene device. Some may find less endometrial scarring worth a low amenorrhea rate in the context of a favorable satisfaction rate. This begs the question, how well can the endometrial cavity be assessed? For answers, keep reading.

Can the endometrial cavity be reliably accessed after Cerene cryoablation?

Endometrial ablation has been associated with intracavitary scarring that results in hematometra, PATSS, and a concern for difficulty in performing an adequate endometrial assessment in patients who develop postablation abnormal uterine bleeding.

In a prospective study, 230 participants (of an initial 242) treated with Cerene cyroablation were studied with hysteroscopic evaluation of the endometrial cavity 12 months after surgery.³ The uterine cavity was accessible in 98.7% of participants. The cavity was not accessible in 3 participants due to pain or cervical stenosis.

Visualization of the uterine cavity was possible by hysteroscopy in 92.7% of study participants (204 of 220), with 1 or both tubal ostia identified in 89.2%. Both tubal ostia were visible in 78.4% and 1 ostium was visible in 10.8%. The cavity was not visualized in 16 of the 220 patients (7.2%) due to intrauterine adhesions, technical difficulties, or menstruation. Also of note, 97 of the 230 participants available at the 12-month follow-up had undergone tubal sterilization before cryoablation and none reported symptoms of PATSS or hematometra, which may be considered surrogate markers for adhesions.

Continue to: Tissue effects differ with ablation technique...

Tissue effects differ with ablation technique

The study authors suggested that different tissue effects occur with freezing compared with heating ablation techniques. With freezing, over weeks to months the chronic inflammatory tissue is eventually replaced by a fibrous scar of collagen, with some preservation of the collagen matrix during tissue repair. This may be different from the charring and boiling of heated tissue that results in architectural tissue loss and may interfere with wound repair and tissue remodeling. Although the incidence of postoperative adhesions after endometrial ablation is not well studied, it is encouraging that most patients who received cryoablation with the Cerene device were able to undergo an evaluation of the endometrium without general anesthesia.

Key takeaway

The main idea from this study is that the endometrium can be assessed by office hysteroscopy in most patients who undergo cryoablation with the Cerene device. This may have advantages in terms of reducing the risk of PATSS and hematometra, and it may allow easier evaluation of the endometrium for patients who have postablation abnormal uterine bleeding. This begs the question, does intrauterine scarring influence the detection of endometrial cancer? For answers, keep reading.

Does endometrial ablation place a patient at higher risk for a delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer?

Radestad AF, Dahm-Kahler P, Holmberg E, et al. Long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial resection and ablation: a population based Swedish gynecologic cancer group (SweGCG) study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101:923-930.
 

Oderkerk TJ, van de Kar MRD, Cornel KMC, et al. Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32:1555-1560.

The answer to this question appears to be no, based on 2 different types of studies. One study was a 20-year population database review from Sweden,⁴ and the other was a systematic review of 11 cohort studies.⁵

Population-based study findings

The data from the Swedish population database is interesting because since 1994 all Swedish citizens have been allocated a unique personal identification number at birth or immigration that enables official registries and research. In reviewing their data from 1997 through 2017, Radestad and colleagues compared transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) and other forms of endometrial ablation against the Swedish National Patient Register data for endometrial cancer.⁴ They found no increase in the incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE (0.3%) or after endometrial ablation (0.02%) and suggested a significantly lower incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation.

This study is beneficial because it is the largest study to explore the long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE and endometrial ablation. The investigators hypothesized that, as an explanation for the difference between rates, ablation may burn deeper into the myometrium and treat adenomyosis compared with TCRE. However, they also were cautious to note that although this was a 20-year study, the incidence of endometrial carcinoma likely will reach a peak in the next few years.

Systematic review conclusions

In the systematic review, out of 890 publications from the authors’ database search, 11 articles were eventually included for review.⁵ A total of 29,102 patients with endometrial ablation were followed for a period of up to 25 years, and the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation varied from 0.0% to 1.6%. A total of 38 cases of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation have been described in the literature. Of those cases, bleeding was the most common presenting symptom of the disease. Endometrial sampling was successful in 89% of cases, and in 90% of cases, histological exam showed an early-stage endometrial adenocarcinoma.

Based on their review, the authors concluded that the incidence of endometrial cancer was not increased in patients who received endometrial ablation, and more importantly, there was no apparent delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation. They further suggested that diagnostic management with endometrial sampling did not appear to be a barrier.

Longer-term data for relugolix combination treatment of symptomatic uterine bleeding from fibroids shows sustained efficacy

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN, et al. Long-term relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140:920-930.

Relugolix combination therapy was previously reported to be effective for the treatment of fibroids based on the 24-week trials LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2. We now have information about longer-term therapy for up to 52 weeks of treatment.⁶

Relugolix combination therapy is a once-daily single tablet for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding thought to be due to uterine fibroids in premenopausal women. It is comprised of relugolix 40 mg (a GnRH antagonist), estradiol 1.0 mg, and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg.

Continue to: Extension study showed sustained efficacy...

 

 

Extension study showed sustained efficacy

The study by Al-Hendy and colleagues showed that the relugolix combination not only was well tolerated but also that there was sustained improvement in heavy bleeding, with the average patient having an approximately 90% decrease in menstrual bleeding from baseline.⁶ It was noted that 70.6% of patients achieved amenorrhea over the last 35 days of treatment.

Importantly, the treatment effect was independent of race, body mass index, baseline menstrual blood loss, and uterine fibroid volume. The bone mineral density (BMD) change trajectory was similar to what was observed in the pivotal study. No new safety concerns were identified, and BMD generally was preserved.

Linzagolix is the newest GnRH antagonist to be studied in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Donnez J, Taylor HS, Stewart EA, et al. Linzagolix with and without hormonal add-back therapy for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: two randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2022;400:896-907.

At the time of this writing, linzagolix was not approved by the FDA. The results of the PRIMROSE 1 (P1) and PRIMROSE 2 (P2) trials were published last year as 2 identical 52-week randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.⁷ The difference between the development of linzagolix as a GnRH antagonist and other similar medications is the strategy of potential partial hypothalamic pituitary ovarian axis suppression at 100 mg versus complete suppression at 200 mg. In this trial by Donnez and colleagues, both linzagolix doses were evaluated with and without add-back hormonal therapy and also were compared with placebo in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio.⁷

Study details and results

To be eligible for this study, participants had to have heavy menstrual bleeding, defined as more than 80 mL for at least 2 cycles, and have at least 1 fibroid that was 2 cm in diameter or multiple small fibroids with the calculated uterine volume of more than 200 cm³. No fibroid larger than 12 cm in diameter was included.

The primary end point was a menstrual blood loss of 80 mL or less and a 50% or more reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline in the 28 days before week 24. Uterine fibroid volume reduction and a safety assessment, including BMD assessment, also were studied.

In the P1 trial, which was conducted in US sites, the response rate for the primary objective was 56.4% in the linzagolix 100-mg group, 66.4% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 71.4% in the 200-mg group, and 75.5% in the 200-mg plus add-back group, compared with 35.0% in the placebo group.

In the P2 trial, which included sites in both Europe and the United States, the response rates were 56.7% in the 100-mg group, 77.2% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 77.7% in the 200-mg group, and 93.9% in the 200-mg plus add-back therapy group, compared with 29.4% in the placebo group. Thus, in both trials a significantly higher proportion of menstrual reduction occurred in all linzagolix treatment groups compared with placebo.

As expected, the incidence of hot flushes was the highest in participants taking the linzagolix 200-mg dose without add-back hormonal therapy, with hot flushes occurring in 35% (P1) and 32% (P2) of patients, compared with all other groups, which was 3% to 14%. All treatment groups showed improvement in quality-of-life scores compared with placebo. Of note, to achieve reduction of fibroid volume in the 40% to 50% range, this was observed consistently only with the linzagolix 200-mg alone dose.

Linzagolix effect on bone

Decreases in BMD appeared to be dose dependent, as lumbar spine losses of up to 4% were noted with the linzgolix 200-mg dose, and a 2% loss was observed with the 100-mg dose at 24 weeks. However, these were improved with add-back therapy. There were continued BMD decreases at 52 weeks, with up to 2.4% with 100 mg of linzagolix and up to 1.5% with 100 mg plus add-back therapy, and up to 2% with 200 mg of linzagolix plus add-back therapy. ●

Endometrial ablation continues to be performed in significant numbers in the United States, with an estimated 500,000 cases annually. Several nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation devices have been approved for use, and some are now discontinued. The newest endometrial ablation therapy to gain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and to have published outcomes is the Cerene cryotherapy ablation device (Channel Medsystems, Inc). The results of 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study were published last year, and we have chosen to review these long-term data in addition to that of a second study in which investigators assessed the ability to access the endometrial cavity postcryoablation. We believe this is important because of concerns about the inability to access the endometrial cavity after ablation, as well as the potential for delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. It is interesting that 2 publications simultaneously reviewed the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation within the past 12 months, and we therefore present those findings as they provide valuable information.

Our second focus in this year’s Update is to provide additional information about the burgeoning data on gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. We review evidence on linzagolix from the PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 trials and longer-term data on relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine fibroids.

Three-year follow-up after endometrial cryoablation with the Cerene device found high patient satisfaction, low hysterectomy rates

Curlin HL, Cintron LC, Anderson TL. A prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Cerene device to treat heavy menstrual bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28;899-908.

Curlin HL, Anderson TL. Endometrial cryoablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study. Int J Womens Health. 2022;14:1083-1092.
 

The 12-month data on the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Cerene cryoablation device were published in 2021 in the CLARITY trial.¹ The 36-month outcomes were published in 2022 and showed sustained clinical effects through month 36 with a low risk of adverse outcomes.² The interesting aspect of this trial is that although the amenorrhea rate was relatively low at 12 months (6.5%), it continued to remain relatively low compared with rates found with other devices, but the amenorrhea rate increased at 36 months (14.4%). This was the percentage of patients who reported, “I no longer get my period.”

Patient satisfaction was high

Despite a relatively low amenorrhea rate, study participants had a high satisfaction rate and a low 3-year hysterectomy rate. Eighty-five percent of the participants were satisfied or very satisfied, and the cumulative hysterectomy rate was low at 5%.

The overall reintervention rate was 8.7%. Six patients were treated with medications, 2 patients underwent repeat endometrial ablation, 1 received a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device, and 12 underwent hysterectomy.

At 36 months, 201 of the original 242 participants were available for assessment. Unfortunately, 5 pregnancies were reported through the 6-month posttreatment period, which emphasizes the importance of having reliable contraception. However, there were no reports of hematometra or postablation tubal sterilization syndrome (PATSS).

Effect on bleeding was long term

The main finding of the CLARITY study is that the Cerene cryoablation device appears to have a relatively stable effect on bleedingfor the first 3 years after therapy, with minimal risk of hematometra and PATSS. What we find interesting is that despite Cerene cryoablation having one of the lowest amenorrhea rates, it not only had a satisfaction rate in line with that of other devices but also had a low hysterectomy rate—only 5%—at 3 years.

The study authors pointed out that there is a lack of scarring within the endometrial cavity with the Cerene device. Some may find less endometrial scarring worth a low amenorrhea rate in the context of a favorable satisfaction rate. This begs the question, how well can the endometrial cavity be assessed? For answers, keep reading.

Can the endometrial cavity be reliably accessed after Cerene cryoablation?

Endometrial ablation has been associated with intracavitary scarring that results in hematometra, PATSS, and a concern for difficulty in performing an adequate endometrial assessment in patients who develop postablation abnormal uterine bleeding.

In a prospective study, 230 participants (of an initial 242) treated with Cerene cyroablation were studied with hysteroscopic evaluation of the endometrial cavity 12 months after surgery.³ The uterine cavity was accessible in 98.7% of participants. The cavity was not accessible in 3 participants due to pain or cervical stenosis.

Visualization of the uterine cavity was possible by hysteroscopy in 92.7% of study participants (204 of 220), with 1 or both tubal ostia identified in 89.2%. Both tubal ostia were visible in 78.4% and 1 ostium was visible in 10.8%. The cavity was not visualized in 16 of the 220 patients (7.2%) due to intrauterine adhesions, technical difficulties, or menstruation. Also of note, 97 of the 230 participants available at the 12-month follow-up had undergone tubal sterilization before cryoablation and none reported symptoms of PATSS or hematometra, which may be considered surrogate markers for adhesions.

Continue to: Tissue effects differ with ablation technique...

Tissue effects differ with ablation technique

The study authors suggested that different tissue effects occur with freezing compared with heating ablation techniques. With freezing, over weeks to months the chronic inflammatory tissue is eventually replaced by a fibrous scar of collagen, with some preservation of the collagen matrix during tissue repair. This may be different from the charring and boiling of heated tissue that results in architectural tissue loss and may interfere with wound repair and tissue remodeling. Although the incidence of postoperative adhesions after endometrial ablation is not well studied, it is encouraging that most patients who received cryoablation with the Cerene device were able to undergo an evaluation of the endometrium without general anesthesia.

Key takeaway

The main idea from this study is that the endometrium can be assessed by office hysteroscopy in most patients who undergo cryoablation with the Cerene device. This may have advantages in terms of reducing the risk of PATSS and hematometra, and it may allow easier evaluation of the endometrium for patients who have postablation abnormal uterine bleeding. This begs the question, does intrauterine scarring influence the detection of endometrial cancer? For answers, keep reading.

Does endometrial ablation place a patient at higher risk for a delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer?

Radestad AF, Dahm-Kahler P, Holmberg E, et al. Long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial resection and ablation: a population based Swedish gynecologic cancer group (SweGCG) study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101:923-930.
 

Oderkerk TJ, van de Kar MRD, Cornel KMC, et al. Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32:1555-1560.

The answer to this question appears to be no, based on 2 different types of studies. One study was a 20-year population database review from Sweden,⁴ and the other was a systematic review of 11 cohort studies.⁵

Population-based study findings

The data from the Swedish population database is interesting because since 1994 all Swedish citizens have been allocated a unique personal identification number at birth or immigration that enables official registries and research. In reviewing their data from 1997 through 2017, Radestad and colleagues compared transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) and other forms of endometrial ablation against the Swedish National Patient Register data for endometrial cancer.⁴ They found no increase in the incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE (0.3%) or after endometrial ablation (0.02%) and suggested a significantly lower incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation.

This study is beneficial because it is the largest study to explore the long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE and endometrial ablation. The investigators hypothesized that, as an explanation for the difference between rates, ablation may burn deeper into the myometrium and treat adenomyosis compared with TCRE. However, they also were cautious to note that although this was a 20-year study, the incidence of endometrial carcinoma likely will reach a peak in the next few years.

Systematic review conclusions

In the systematic review, out of 890 publications from the authors’ database search, 11 articles were eventually included for review.⁵ A total of 29,102 patients with endometrial ablation were followed for a period of up to 25 years, and the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation varied from 0.0% to 1.6%. A total of 38 cases of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation have been described in the literature. Of those cases, bleeding was the most common presenting symptom of the disease. Endometrial sampling was successful in 89% of cases, and in 90% of cases, histological exam showed an early-stage endometrial adenocarcinoma.

Based on their review, the authors concluded that the incidence of endometrial cancer was not increased in patients who received endometrial ablation, and more importantly, there was no apparent delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation. They further suggested that diagnostic management with endometrial sampling did not appear to be a barrier.

Longer-term data for relugolix combination treatment of symptomatic uterine bleeding from fibroids shows sustained efficacy

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN, et al. Long-term relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140:920-930.

Relugolix combination therapy was previously reported to be effective for the treatment of fibroids based on the 24-week trials LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2. We now have information about longer-term therapy for up to 52 weeks of treatment.⁶

Relugolix combination therapy is a once-daily single tablet for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding thought to be due to uterine fibroids in premenopausal women. It is comprised of relugolix 40 mg (a GnRH antagonist), estradiol 1.0 mg, and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg.

Continue to: Extension study showed sustained efficacy...

 

 

Extension study showed sustained efficacy

The study by Al-Hendy and colleagues showed that the relugolix combination not only was well tolerated but also that there was sustained improvement in heavy bleeding, with the average patient having an approximately 90% decrease in menstrual bleeding from baseline.⁶ It was noted that 70.6% of patients achieved amenorrhea over the last 35 days of treatment.

Importantly, the treatment effect was independent of race, body mass index, baseline menstrual blood loss, and uterine fibroid volume. The bone mineral density (BMD) change trajectory was similar to what was observed in the pivotal study. No new safety concerns were identified, and BMD generally was preserved.

Linzagolix is the newest GnRH antagonist to be studied in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Donnez J, Taylor HS, Stewart EA, et al. Linzagolix with and without hormonal add-back therapy for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: two randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2022;400:896-907.

At the time of this writing, linzagolix was not approved by the FDA. The results of the PRIMROSE 1 (P1) and PRIMROSE 2 (P2) trials were published last year as 2 identical 52-week randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.⁷ The difference between the development of linzagolix as a GnRH antagonist and other similar medications is the strategy of potential partial hypothalamic pituitary ovarian axis suppression at 100 mg versus complete suppression at 200 mg. In this trial by Donnez and colleagues, both linzagolix doses were evaluated with and without add-back hormonal therapy and also were compared with placebo in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio.⁷

Study details and results

To be eligible for this study, participants had to have heavy menstrual bleeding, defined as more than 80 mL for at least 2 cycles, and have at least 1 fibroid that was 2 cm in diameter or multiple small fibroids with the calculated uterine volume of more than 200 cm³. No fibroid larger than 12 cm in diameter was included.

The primary end point was a menstrual blood loss of 80 mL or less and a 50% or more reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline in the 28 days before week 24. Uterine fibroid volume reduction and a safety assessment, including BMD assessment, also were studied.

In the P1 trial, which was conducted in US sites, the response rate for the primary objective was 56.4% in the linzagolix 100-mg group, 66.4% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 71.4% in the 200-mg group, and 75.5% in the 200-mg plus add-back group, compared with 35.0% in the placebo group.

In the P2 trial, which included sites in both Europe and the United States, the response rates were 56.7% in the 100-mg group, 77.2% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 77.7% in the 200-mg group, and 93.9% in the 200-mg plus add-back therapy group, compared with 29.4% in the placebo group. Thus, in both trials a significantly higher proportion of menstrual reduction occurred in all linzagolix treatment groups compared with placebo.

As expected, the incidence of hot flushes was the highest in participants taking the linzagolix 200-mg dose without add-back hormonal therapy, with hot flushes occurring in 35% (P1) and 32% (P2) of patients, compared with all other groups, which was 3% to 14%. All treatment groups showed improvement in quality-of-life scores compared with placebo. Of note, to achieve reduction of fibroid volume in the 40% to 50% range, this was observed consistently only with the linzagolix 200-mg alone dose.

Linzagolix effect on bone

Decreases in BMD appeared to be dose dependent, as lumbar spine losses of up to 4% were noted with the linzgolix 200-mg dose, and a 2% loss was observed with the 100-mg dose at 24 weeks. However, these were improved with add-back therapy. There were continued BMD decreases at 52 weeks, with up to 2.4% with 100 mg of linzagolix and up to 1.5% with 100 mg plus add-back therapy, and up to 2% with 200 mg of linzagolix plus add-back therapy. ●

COMMENTARY

Answering the protein question when prescribing plant-based diets

Cate Collings, MD

Science supports the use of a whole food, predominantly plant-based dietary pattern for optimal health, including reduced risk for chronic disease, and best practice in treatment of leading chronic disease.

But clinicians who prescribe such eating patterns encounter a common concern from patients whose health may benefit.

“Where will I get my protein?”

We’ve all heard it, and it’s understandable. Patients know that protein is essential for their health and strength, and animal foods have developed a reputation for being the premier protein sources that humans should prioritize through diet. But widespread misconceptions about human needs for protein have inaccurately equated animal food as the best and only sources of protein, augmented by fad diets and modern food marketing. All of this leads to confusion about how much protein people should actually consume and the quality of protein found in plant foods, making many patients reluctant to fully embrace a whole food.

To ensure that patients have all the facts when making dietary decisions, clinicians need to be prepared to respond to concerns about protein adequacy and quality with evidence-based information. A good starting point for these conversations is to assess how much protein patients are already consuming. A review of the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that women normally consume an average of 69 g and men an average of 97 g of protein daily.

As a general point of reference, the recommended dietary allowance for protein is about 0.8 g/kg of bodyweight (or 0.36 g/lb), which equates to about 52 g of protein per day for a 145-lb woman and 65 g for a 180-lb man. But for many patients, it may be best to get a more precise recommendation based upon age, gender and physical activity level by using a handy Department of Agriculture tool for health care professionals to calculate daily protein and other nutrient needs. Patients can also use one of countless apps to track their protein and other nutrient intake. By using the tool and a tracking app, both clinician and patients can be fully informed whether protein needs are being met.
 

LATEST NEWS

Continuous glucose monitors for pregnant patients?

Robert Fulton

Patients with pregestational diabetes may benefit from use of a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump paired with a continuous glucose monitor. Use of the tools has been associated with a reduction in maternal and neonatal morbidity, a recent study found.

“We were seeing an unacceptable burden of both maternal and fetal disease in our diabetic population,” said Neil Hamill, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Methodist Women’s Hospital, Omaha, Neb., and an author of the study. “We thought the success with this technology in the nonpregnant population would and should translate into the pregnant population.”

Dr. Hamill and his colleagues analyzed data from 55 pregnant patients who received care at the Women’s Hospital Perinatal Center at the Nebraska Methodist Health System between October 2019 and October 2022. Everyone in the cohort had pregestational diabetes and required insulin prior to week 20 of pregnancy. They used CGMs for more than 2 weeks. The study set blood glucose levels of less than 140 mg/dL as a healthy benchmark.

Participants who had severe preeclampsia, who had delivered preterm, who had delivered a neonate with respiratory distress syndrome, and/or who had given birth to a larger-than-expected infant spent less time in the safe zone — having a blood glucose level below 140 mg/dL—than women who did not have those risk factors.

“When blood sugar control is better, maternal and fetal outcomes are improved,” Dr. Hamill said.

Neetu Sodhi, MD, an ob.gyn. at Providence Cedars-Sinai Tarzana Medical Center, Los Angeles, expressed optimism that use of blood glucose monitors and insulin pumps can improve outcomes for pregnant patients with pregestational diabetes.

“This is just another case for why it’s so important for patients to have access to these types of devices that really, really improve their outcomes and their health, and now it’s proven in the case of pregnancy outcomes too – or at least suggested strongly with this data,” Dr. Sodhi said.

Continue to: It may be time to pay attention to COVID again...

It may be time to pay attention to COVID again

Kara Grant; Damian McNamara, MA

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5—from the Omicron family—now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July.

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation.

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29—the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading—but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.” ●

COMMENTARY

Answering the protein question when prescribing plant-based diets

Cate Collings, MD

Science supports the use of a whole food, predominantly plant-based dietary pattern for optimal health, including reduced risk for chronic disease, and best practice in treatment of leading chronic disease.

But clinicians who prescribe such eating patterns encounter a common concern from patients whose health may benefit.

“Where will I get my protein?”

We’ve all heard it, and it’s understandable. Patients know that protein is essential for their health and strength, and animal foods have developed a reputation for being the premier protein sources that humans should prioritize through diet. But widespread misconceptions about human needs for protein have inaccurately equated animal food as the best and only sources of protein, augmented by fad diets and modern food marketing. All of this leads to confusion about how much protein people should actually consume and the quality of protein found in plant foods, making many patients reluctant to fully embrace a whole food.

To ensure that patients have all the facts when making dietary decisions, clinicians need to be prepared to respond to concerns about protein adequacy and quality with evidence-based information. A good starting point for these conversations is to assess how much protein patients are already consuming. A review of the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that women normally consume an average of 69 g and men an average of 97 g of protein daily.

As a general point of reference, the recommended dietary allowance for protein is about 0.8 g/kg of bodyweight (or 0.36 g/lb), which equates to about 52 g of protein per day for a 145-lb woman and 65 g for a 180-lb man. But for many patients, it may be best to get a more precise recommendation based upon age, gender and physical activity level by using a handy Department of Agriculture tool for health care professionals to calculate daily protein and other nutrient needs. Patients can also use one of countless apps to track their protein and other nutrient intake. By using the tool and a tracking app, both clinician and patients can be fully informed whether protein needs are being met.
 

LATEST NEWS

Continuous glucose monitors for pregnant patients?

Robert Fulton

Patients with pregestational diabetes may benefit from use of a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump paired with a continuous glucose monitor. Use of the tools has been associated with a reduction in maternal and neonatal morbidity, a recent study found.

“We were seeing an unacceptable burden of both maternal and fetal disease in our diabetic population,” said Neil Hamill, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Methodist Women’s Hospital, Omaha, Neb., and an author of the study. “We thought the success with this technology in the nonpregnant population would and should translate into the pregnant population.”

Dr. Hamill and his colleagues analyzed data from 55 pregnant patients who received care at the Women’s Hospital Perinatal Center at the Nebraska Methodist Health System between October 2019 and October 2022. Everyone in the cohort had pregestational diabetes and required insulin prior to week 20 of pregnancy. They used CGMs for more than 2 weeks. The study set blood glucose levels of less than 140 mg/dL as a healthy benchmark.

Participants who had severe preeclampsia, who had delivered preterm, who had delivered a neonate with respiratory distress syndrome, and/or who had given birth to a larger-than-expected infant spent less time in the safe zone — having a blood glucose level below 140 mg/dL—than women who did not have those risk factors.

“When blood sugar control is better, maternal and fetal outcomes are improved,” Dr. Hamill said.

Neetu Sodhi, MD, an ob.gyn. at Providence Cedars-Sinai Tarzana Medical Center, Los Angeles, expressed optimism that use of blood glucose monitors and insulin pumps can improve outcomes for pregnant patients with pregestational diabetes.

“This is just another case for why it’s so important for patients to have access to these types of devices that really, really improve their outcomes and their health, and now it’s proven in the case of pregnancy outcomes too – or at least suggested strongly with this data,” Dr. Sodhi said.

Continue to: It may be time to pay attention to COVID again...

It may be time to pay attention to COVID again

Kara Grant; Damian McNamara, MA

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5—from the Omicron family—now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July.

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation.

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29—the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading—but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.” ●

COMMENTARY

Answering the protein question when prescribing plant-based diets

Cate Collings, MD

Science supports the use of a whole food, predominantly plant-based dietary pattern for optimal health, including reduced risk for chronic disease, and best practice in treatment of leading chronic disease.

But clinicians who prescribe such eating patterns encounter a common concern from patients whose health may benefit.

“Where will I get my protein?”

We’ve all heard it, and it’s understandable. Patients know that protein is essential for their health and strength, and animal foods have developed a reputation for being the premier protein sources that humans should prioritize through diet. But widespread misconceptions about human needs for protein have inaccurately equated animal food as the best and only sources of protein, augmented by fad diets and modern food marketing. All of this leads to confusion about how much protein people should actually consume and the quality of protein found in plant foods, making many patients reluctant to fully embrace a whole food.

To ensure that patients have all the facts when making dietary decisions, clinicians need to be prepared to respond to concerns about protein adequacy and quality with evidence-based information. A good starting point for these conversations is to assess how much protein patients are already consuming. A review of the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that women normally consume an average of 69 g and men an average of 97 g of protein daily.

As a general point of reference, the recommended dietary allowance for protein is about 0.8 g/kg of bodyweight (or 0.36 g/lb), which equates to about 52 g of protein per day for a 145-lb woman and 65 g for a 180-lb man. But for many patients, it may be best to get a more precise recommendation based upon age, gender and physical activity level by using a handy Department of Agriculture tool for health care professionals to calculate daily protein and other nutrient needs. Patients can also use one of countless apps to track their protein and other nutrient intake. By using the tool and a tracking app, both clinician and patients can be fully informed whether protein needs are being met.
 

LATEST NEWS

Continuous glucose monitors for pregnant patients?

Robert Fulton

Patients with pregestational diabetes may benefit from use of a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump paired with a continuous glucose monitor. Use of the tools has been associated with a reduction in maternal and neonatal morbidity, a recent study found.

“We were seeing an unacceptable burden of both maternal and fetal disease in our diabetic population,” said Neil Hamill, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Methodist Women’s Hospital, Omaha, Neb., and an author of the study. “We thought the success with this technology in the nonpregnant population would and should translate into the pregnant population.”

Dr. Hamill and his colleagues analyzed data from 55 pregnant patients who received care at the Women’s Hospital Perinatal Center at the Nebraska Methodist Health System between October 2019 and October 2022. Everyone in the cohort had pregestational diabetes and required insulin prior to week 20 of pregnancy. They used CGMs for more than 2 weeks. The study set blood glucose levels of less than 140 mg/dL as a healthy benchmark.

Participants who had severe preeclampsia, who had delivered preterm, who had delivered a neonate with respiratory distress syndrome, and/or who had given birth to a larger-than-expected infant spent less time in the safe zone — having a blood glucose level below 140 mg/dL—than women who did not have those risk factors.

“When blood sugar control is better, maternal and fetal outcomes are improved,” Dr. Hamill said.

Neetu Sodhi, MD, an ob.gyn. at Providence Cedars-Sinai Tarzana Medical Center, Los Angeles, expressed optimism that use of blood glucose monitors and insulin pumps can improve outcomes for pregnant patients with pregestational diabetes.

“This is just another case for why it’s so important for patients to have access to these types of devices that really, really improve their outcomes and their health, and now it’s proven in the case of pregnancy outcomes too – or at least suggested strongly with this data,” Dr. Sodhi said.

Continue to: It may be time to pay attention to COVID again...

It may be time to pay attention to COVID again

Kara Grant; Damian McNamara, MA

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5—from the Omicron family—now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July.

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation.

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29—the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading—but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.” ●

I was excited to see that the study included the use of objective electronic monitoring of sleep quality. This was done using wrist actigraphy, devices on the wrist that measure acceleration movements. What a great tool this could be for measuring how much scratching our patients are doing! With devices like these measuring movements objectively, we wouldn't have to rely on patients' self-report of itch or sleep quality. Sadly, these monitors did not show any meaningful differences between the dupilumab and placebo groups. This technology holds great promise but it isn't yet ready for prime-time assessment of scratching or sleep.

The title of Chiesa Fuxench and colleagues' article, "Risk of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis," might be scary to our patients. The authors reported that "children and adults with AD had an increased risk of IBD [inflammatory bowel disease]." The authors concluded, "Clinicians should be aware of these risks, particularly when selecting systemic treatments for AD in patients who may have coincident gastrointestinal symptoms." Bah, humbug, I say!

Be careful when someone tells you there is increased risk. This study was done exceptionally well by an exceptionally good research team. They were working with a huge database and included many controls to ensure that their findings weren't due to chance. And while they did find an "increased risk," they proved — rather conclusively, I believe — that the increased risk is tiny and not something we need to worry about.

The results of this study suggest that there is a scientific link between AD and IBD, probably some genetic inflammatory signaling contributing to both conditions. But even in the highest-risk group, it would take seeing well over 1000 patients for a year to see one more case of IBD due to AD. This article is a good foundation for researchers who want to explore the underlying connection between AD and IBD. The study is an even better foundation for physicians who want to reassure patients that there is little to no meaningful increased risk for IBD in patients with AD.

Am I allowed to just say "Ditto!"? Wan and colleagues' article "Incidence of Cardiovascular Disease and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis" does show a statistically significant increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease in patients with AD. Is that increase clinically significant? This study was also exceptionally well done by an exceptionally good research team. They concluded, "Atopic dermatitis, particularly when severe, is associated with increased risks of venous thromboembolism and CV disease, which may influence the monitoring of patients and selection of treatments for AD." I look at their findings and conclude that AD, even when severe, is associated with little if any clinically meaningful increased risks for venous thromboembolism or CV disease, and we don't need to add any special CV monitoring of AD patients.

The key data are presented in Table 2 of their manuscript. In children, the risk for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in those with severe AD was about 3 times (0.16) that of those with no AD (0.05). But those numbers are per 1000 patient-years. Therefore, the increased risk is 0.16 - 0.05 = 0.11/1000 patient-years. Thus, you'd expect to see one more case of DVT per year in every 9000 children with severe AD. Does that mean we need to monitor all 9000 for DVT? Would that be cost-effective? Might the monitoring cause more problems than it would solve?

CV disease is much more common in adults than in children, but still, with a difference in risk of about 0.5-1 per 1000 patient-years, you'd only expect one more event due to AD in every 1000-2000 patients, and even that is assuming that the entire risk difference was due to AD and not to some other variable that wasn't measured.

With so much drug development for AD, I think we are going to be inundated with companies wanting us to hear their message over and over again. One way to do that is to mine clinical trial data for more papers. In Merola and colleagues' article "Safety and Efficacy of Tralokinumab in Older Adults With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis" we see just that. We already know that tralokinumab is effective for moderate to severe AD from past publications of clinical trial data. Here, the investigators report on a subset of the clinical trial data — the data on older adults — and, not surprisingly, the drug worked. The efficacy rate, 17% getting clear or almost clear, doesn't sound particularly exciting compared with the higher rates we've seen for other products, but perhaps that lower rate is due in part to differences in studies. Instead of more cuts of data from the same trials, it would be nice to see how tralokinumab compares with other AD treatments on a head-to-head basis.

I was excited to see that the study included the use of objective electronic monitoring of sleep quality. This was done using wrist actigraphy, devices on the wrist that measure acceleration movements. What a great tool this could be for measuring how much scratching our patients are doing! With devices like these measuring movements objectively, we wouldn't have to rely on patients' self-report of itch or sleep quality. Sadly, these monitors did not show any meaningful differences between the dupilumab and placebo groups. This technology holds great promise but it isn't yet ready for prime-time assessment of scratching or sleep.

The title of Chiesa Fuxench and colleagues' article, "Risk of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis," might be scary to our patients. The authors reported that "children and adults with AD had an increased risk of IBD [inflammatory bowel disease]." The authors concluded, "Clinicians should be aware of these risks, particularly when selecting systemic treatments for AD in patients who may have coincident gastrointestinal symptoms." Bah, humbug, I say!

Be careful when someone tells you there is increased risk. This study was done exceptionally well by an exceptionally good research team. They were working with a huge database and included many controls to ensure that their findings weren't due to chance. And while they did find an "increased risk," they proved — rather conclusively, I believe — that the increased risk is tiny and not something we need to worry about.

The results of this study suggest that there is a scientific link between AD and IBD, probably some genetic inflammatory signaling contributing to both conditions. But even in the highest-risk group, it would take seeing well over 1000 patients for a year to see one more case of IBD due to AD. This article is a good foundation for researchers who want to explore the underlying connection between AD and IBD. The study is an even better foundation for physicians who want to reassure patients that there is little to no meaningful increased risk for IBD in patients with AD.

Am I allowed to just say "Ditto!"? Wan and colleagues' article "Incidence of Cardiovascular Disease and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis" does show a statistically significant increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease in patients with AD. Is that increase clinically significant? This study was also exceptionally well done by an exceptionally good research team. They concluded, "Atopic dermatitis, particularly when severe, is associated with increased risks of venous thromboembolism and CV disease, which may influence the monitoring of patients and selection of treatments for AD." I look at their findings and conclude that AD, even when severe, is associated with little if any clinically meaningful increased risks for venous thromboembolism or CV disease, and we don't need to add any special CV monitoring of AD patients.

The key data are presented in Table 2 of their manuscript. In children, the risk for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in those with severe AD was about 3 times (0.16) that of those with no AD (0.05). But those numbers are per 1000 patient-years. Therefore, the increased risk is 0.16 - 0.05 = 0.11/1000 patient-years. Thus, you'd expect to see one more case of DVT per year in every 9000 children with severe AD. Does that mean we need to monitor all 9000 for DVT? Would that be cost-effective? Might the monitoring cause more problems than it would solve?

CV disease is much more common in adults than in children, but still, with a difference in risk of about 0.5-1 per 1000 patient-years, you'd only expect one more event due to AD in every 1000-2000 patients, and even that is assuming that the entire risk difference was due to AD and not to some other variable that wasn't measured.

With so much drug development for AD, I think we are going to be inundated with companies wanting us to hear their message over and over again. One way to do that is to mine clinical trial data for more papers. In Merola and colleagues' article "Safety and Efficacy of Tralokinumab in Older Adults With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis" we see just that. We already know that tralokinumab is effective for moderate to severe AD from past publications of clinical trial data. Here, the investigators report on a subset of the clinical trial data — the data on older adults — and, not surprisingly, the drug worked. The efficacy rate, 17% getting clear or almost clear, doesn't sound particularly exciting compared with the higher rates we've seen for other products, but perhaps that lower rate is due in part to differences in studies. Instead of more cuts of data from the same trials, it would be nice to see how tralokinumab compares with other AD treatments on a head-to-head basis.

I was excited to see that the study included the use of objective electronic monitoring of sleep quality. This was done using wrist actigraphy, devices on the wrist that measure acceleration movements. What a great tool this could be for measuring how much scratching our patients are doing! With devices like these measuring movements objectively, we wouldn't have to rely on patients' self-report of itch or sleep quality. Sadly, these monitors did not show any meaningful differences between the dupilumab and placebo groups. This technology holds great promise but it isn't yet ready for prime-time assessment of scratching or sleep.

The title of Chiesa Fuxench and colleagues' article, "Risk of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis," might be scary to our patients. The authors reported that "children and adults with AD had an increased risk of IBD [inflammatory bowel disease]." The authors concluded, "Clinicians should be aware of these risks, particularly when selecting systemic treatments for AD in patients who may have coincident gastrointestinal symptoms." Bah, humbug, I say!

Be careful when someone tells you there is increased risk. This study was done exceptionally well by an exceptionally good research team. They were working with a huge database and included many controls to ensure that their findings weren't due to chance. And while they did find an "increased risk," they proved — rather conclusively, I believe — that the increased risk is tiny and not something we need to worry about.

The results of this study suggest that there is a scientific link between AD and IBD, probably some genetic inflammatory signaling contributing to both conditions. But even in the highest-risk group, it would take seeing well over 1000 patients for a year to see one more case of IBD due to AD. This article is a good foundation for researchers who want to explore the underlying connection between AD and IBD. The study is an even better foundation for physicians who want to reassure patients that there is little to no meaningful increased risk for IBD in patients with AD.

Am I allowed to just say "Ditto!"? Wan and colleagues' article "Incidence of Cardiovascular Disease and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis" does show a statistically significant increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease in patients with AD. Is that increase clinically significant? This study was also exceptionally well done by an exceptionally good research team. They concluded, "Atopic dermatitis, particularly when severe, is associated with increased risks of venous thromboembolism and CV disease, which may influence the monitoring of patients and selection of treatments for AD." I look at their findings and conclude that AD, even when severe, is associated with little if any clinically meaningful increased risks for venous thromboembolism or CV disease, and we don't need to add any special CV monitoring of AD patients.

The key data are presented in Table 2 of their manuscript. In children, the risk for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in those with severe AD was about 3 times (0.16) that of those with no AD (0.05). But those numbers are per 1000 patient-years. Therefore, the increased risk is 0.16 - 0.05 = 0.11/1000 patient-years. Thus, you'd expect to see one more case of DVT per year in every 9000 children with severe AD. Does that mean we need to monitor all 9000 for DVT? Would that be cost-effective? Might the monitoring cause more problems than it would solve?

CV disease is much more common in adults than in children, but still, with a difference in risk of about 0.5-1 per 1000 patient-years, you'd only expect one more event due to AD in every 1000-2000 patients, and even that is assuming that the entire risk difference was due to AD and not to some other variable that wasn't measured.

With so much drug development for AD, I think we are going to be inundated with companies wanting us to hear their message over and over again. One way to do that is to mine clinical trial data for more papers. In Merola and colleagues' article "Safety and Efficacy of Tralokinumab in Older Adults With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis" we see just that. We already know that tralokinumab is effective for moderate to severe AD from past publications of clinical trial data. Here, the investigators report on a subset of the clinical trial data — the data on older adults — and, not surprisingly, the drug worked. The efficacy rate, 17% getting clear or almost clear, doesn't sound particularly exciting compared with the higher rates we've seen for other products, but perhaps that lower rate is due in part to differences in studies. Instead of more cuts of data from the same trials, it would be nice to see how tralokinumab compares with other AD treatments on a head-to-head basis.

The Diagnosis: Scabies Infestation

Direct microscopy revealed the presence of a live scabies mite and numerous eggs (Figure), confirming the diagnosis of a scabies infestation. Scabies, caused by the Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis mite, characteristically presents in adults as pruritic hyperkeratotic plaques of the interdigital web spaces of the hands, flexor surfaces of the wrists and elbows, axillae, male genitalia, and breasts; however, an atypical presentation is common in immunocompromised or immunosuppressed individuals, such as our patient. In children, the palms, soles, and head (ie, face, scalp, neck) are common sites of involvement. Although dermatologists generally are familiar with severe atypical presentations such as Norwegian crusted scabies or bullous scabies, it is important that they are aware of other atypical presentations, such as the diffuse papulonodular variant observed in our patient.¹ As such, a low threshold of suspicion for scabies infestations should be employed in immunocompromised patients with new-onset pruritic eruptions.

Direct microscopy is widely accepted as the gold standard for the diagnosis of scabies infestations; it is a fast and low-cost diagnostic tool. However, this technique displays variable sensitivity in clinical practice, requiring experience and a skilled hand.^1,2 Other more sensitive diagnostic options for suspected scabies infestations include histopathology, serology, and molecular-based techniques such as DNA isolation and polymerase chain reaction. Although these tests do demonstrate greater sensitivity, they also are more invasive, time intensive, and costly.² Therefore, they typically are not the first choice for a suspected scabies infestation. Dermoscopy has emerged as another tool to aid in the diagnosis of a suspected scabies infestation, enabling visualization of scaly burrows, eggs, and live mites. Classically, findings resembling a delta wing with contrail are seen on dermoscopic examination. The delta wing represents the brown triangular structure of the pigmented scabies mite head and anterior legs; the contrail is the lighter linear structures streaming behind the scabies mite (similar to visible vapor streams occurring behind flying jets), representing the burrow of the mite.

Although treatment of scabies infestations typically can be accomplished with permethrin cream 5%, the diffuse nature of our patient’s lesions in combination with his immunocompromised state made oral therapy a more appropriate choice. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, the patient received 2 doses of oral weight-based ivermectin (200 μg/kg per dose) administered 1 week apart.^1,3 The initial dose at day 1 serves to eliminate any scabies mites that are present, while the second dose 1 week later eliminates any residual eggs. Our patient experienced complete resolution of the symptoms following this treatment regimen.

It was important to differentiate our patient’s scabies infestation from other intensely pruritic conditions and morphologic mimics including papular urticaria, lichenoid drug eruptions, tinea corporis, and prurigo nodularis. Papular urticaria is an intensely pruritic hypersensitivity reaction to insect bites that commonly affects the extremities or other exposed areas. Visible puncta may be present.⁴ Our patient’s lesion distribution involved areas covered by clothing, no puncta were present, and he had no history of a recent arthropod assault, making the diagnosis of papular urticaria less likely.

Lichenoid drug eruptions classically present with symmetric, diffuse, pruritic, violaceous, scaling papules and plaques that present 2 to 3 months after exposure to an offending agent.⁵ Our patient’s eruption was papulonodular with no violaceous plaques, and he did not report changes to his medications, making a lichenoid drug eruption less likely.

Tinea corporis is another intensely pruritic condition that should be considered, especially in immunocompromised patients. It is caused by dermatophytes and classically presents as erythematous pruritic plaques with an annular, advancing, scaling border.⁶ Although immunocompromised patients may display extensive involvement, our patient’s lesions were papulonodular with no annular morphology or scale, rendering tinea corporis less likely.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic condition characterized by pruritic, violaceous, dome-shaped, smooth or crusted nodules secondary to repeated scratching or pressure. Although prurigo nodules can develop as a secondary change due to chronic excoriations in scabies infestations, prurigo nodules usually do not develop in areas such as the midline of the back that are not easily reached by the fingernails,⁷ which made prurigo nodularis less likely in our patient.

This case describes a unique papulonodular variant of scabies presenting in an immunocompromised cancer patient. Timely recognition and diagnosis of atypical scabies infestations can decrease morbidity and improve the quality of life of these patients.

The Diagnosis: Scabies Infestation

Direct microscopy revealed the presence of a live scabies mite and numerous eggs (Figure), confirming the diagnosis of a scabies infestation. Scabies, caused by the Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis mite, characteristically presents in adults as pruritic hyperkeratotic plaques of the interdigital web spaces of the hands, flexor surfaces of the wrists and elbows, axillae, male genitalia, and breasts; however, an atypical presentation is common in immunocompromised or immunosuppressed individuals, such as our patient. In children, the palms, soles, and head (ie, face, scalp, neck) are common sites of involvement. Although dermatologists generally are familiar with severe atypical presentations such as Norwegian crusted scabies or bullous scabies, it is important that they are aware of other atypical presentations, such as the diffuse papulonodular variant observed in our patient.¹ As such, a low threshold of suspicion for scabies infestations should be employed in immunocompromised patients with new-onset pruritic eruptions.

Direct microscopy is widely accepted as the gold standard for the diagnosis of scabies infestations; it is a fast and low-cost diagnostic tool. However, this technique displays variable sensitivity in clinical practice, requiring experience and a skilled hand.^1,2 Other more sensitive diagnostic options for suspected scabies infestations include histopathology, serology, and molecular-based techniques such as DNA isolation and polymerase chain reaction. Although these tests do demonstrate greater sensitivity, they also are more invasive, time intensive, and costly.² Therefore, they typically are not the first choice for a suspected scabies infestation. Dermoscopy has emerged as another tool to aid in the diagnosis of a suspected scabies infestation, enabling visualization of scaly burrows, eggs, and live mites. Classically, findings resembling a delta wing with contrail are seen on dermoscopic examination. The delta wing represents the brown triangular structure of the pigmented scabies mite head and anterior legs; the contrail is the lighter linear structures streaming behind the scabies mite (similar to visible vapor streams occurring behind flying jets), representing the burrow of the mite.

Although treatment of scabies infestations typically can be accomplished with permethrin cream 5%, the diffuse nature of our patient’s lesions in combination with his immunocompromised state made oral therapy a more appropriate choice. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, the patient received 2 doses of oral weight-based ivermectin (200 μg/kg per dose) administered 1 week apart.^1,3 The initial dose at day 1 serves to eliminate any scabies mites that are present, while the second dose 1 week later eliminates any residual eggs. Our patient experienced complete resolution of the symptoms following this treatment regimen.

It was important to differentiate our patient’s scabies infestation from other intensely pruritic conditions and morphologic mimics including papular urticaria, lichenoid drug eruptions, tinea corporis, and prurigo nodularis. Papular urticaria is an intensely pruritic hypersensitivity reaction to insect bites that commonly affects the extremities or other exposed areas. Visible puncta may be present.⁴ Our patient’s lesion distribution involved areas covered by clothing, no puncta were present, and he had no history of a recent arthropod assault, making the diagnosis of papular urticaria less likely.

Lichenoid drug eruptions classically present with symmetric, diffuse, pruritic, violaceous, scaling papules and plaques that present 2 to 3 months after exposure to an offending agent.⁵ Our patient’s eruption was papulonodular with no violaceous plaques, and he did not report changes to his medications, making a lichenoid drug eruption less likely.

Tinea corporis is another intensely pruritic condition that should be considered, especially in immunocompromised patients. It is caused by dermatophytes and classically presents as erythematous pruritic plaques with an annular, advancing, scaling border.⁶ Although immunocompromised patients may display extensive involvement, our patient’s lesions were papulonodular with no annular morphology or scale, rendering tinea corporis less likely.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic condition characterized by pruritic, violaceous, dome-shaped, smooth or crusted nodules secondary to repeated scratching or pressure. Although prurigo nodules can develop as a secondary change due to chronic excoriations in scabies infestations, prurigo nodules usually do not develop in areas such as the midline of the back that are not easily reached by the fingernails,⁷ which made prurigo nodularis less likely in our patient.

This case describes a unique papulonodular variant of scabies presenting in an immunocompromised cancer patient. Timely recognition and diagnosis of atypical scabies infestations can decrease morbidity and improve the quality of life of these patients.

The Diagnosis: Scabies Infestation

Direct microscopy revealed the presence of a live scabies mite and numerous eggs (Figure), confirming the diagnosis of a scabies infestation. Scabies, caused by the Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis mite, characteristically presents in adults as pruritic hyperkeratotic plaques of the interdigital web spaces of the hands, flexor surfaces of the wrists and elbows, axillae, male genitalia, and breasts; however, an atypical presentation is common in immunocompromised or immunosuppressed individuals, such as our patient. In children, the palms, soles, and head (ie, face, scalp, neck) are common sites of involvement. Although dermatologists generally are familiar with severe atypical presentations such as Norwegian crusted scabies or bullous scabies, it is important that they are aware of other atypical presentations, such as the diffuse papulonodular variant observed in our patient.¹ As such, a low threshold of suspicion for scabies infestations should be employed in immunocompromised patients with new-onset pruritic eruptions.

Direct microscopy is widely accepted as the gold standard for the diagnosis of scabies infestations; it is a fast and low-cost diagnostic tool. However, this technique displays variable sensitivity in clinical practice, requiring experience and a skilled hand.^1,2 Other more sensitive diagnostic options for suspected scabies infestations include histopathology, serology, and molecular-based techniques such as DNA isolation and polymerase chain reaction. Although these tests do demonstrate greater sensitivity, they also are more invasive, time intensive, and costly.² Therefore, they typically are not the first choice for a suspected scabies infestation. Dermoscopy has emerged as another tool to aid in the diagnosis of a suspected scabies infestation, enabling visualization of scaly burrows, eggs, and live mites. Classically, findings resembling a delta wing with contrail are seen on dermoscopic examination. The delta wing represents the brown triangular structure of the pigmented scabies mite head and anterior legs; the contrail is the lighter linear structures streaming behind the scabies mite (similar to visible vapor streams occurring behind flying jets), representing the burrow of the mite.

Although treatment of scabies infestations typically can be accomplished with permethrin cream 5%, the diffuse nature of our patient’s lesions in combination with his immunocompromised state made oral therapy a more appropriate choice. Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, the patient received 2 doses of oral weight-based ivermectin (200 μg/kg per dose) administered 1 week apart.^1,3 The initial dose at day 1 serves to eliminate any scabies mites that are present, while the second dose 1 week later eliminates any residual eggs. Our patient experienced complete resolution of the symptoms following this treatment regimen.

It was important to differentiate our patient’s scabies infestation from other intensely pruritic conditions and morphologic mimics including papular urticaria, lichenoid drug eruptions, tinea corporis, and prurigo nodularis. Papular urticaria is an intensely pruritic hypersensitivity reaction to insect bites that commonly affects the extremities or other exposed areas. Visible puncta may be present.⁴ Our patient’s lesion distribution involved areas covered by clothing, no puncta were present, and he had no history of a recent arthropod assault, making the diagnosis of papular urticaria less likely.

Lichenoid drug eruptions classically present with symmetric, diffuse, pruritic, violaceous, scaling papules and plaques that present 2 to 3 months after exposure to an offending agent.⁵ Our patient’s eruption was papulonodular with no violaceous plaques, and he did not report changes to his medications, making a lichenoid drug eruption less likely.

Tinea corporis is another intensely pruritic condition that should be considered, especially in immunocompromised patients. It is caused by dermatophytes and classically presents as erythematous pruritic plaques with an annular, advancing, scaling border.⁶ Although immunocompromised patients may display extensive involvement, our patient’s lesions were papulonodular with no annular morphology or scale, rendering tinea corporis less likely.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic condition characterized by pruritic, violaceous, dome-shaped, smooth or crusted nodules secondary to repeated scratching or pressure. Although prurigo nodules can develop as a secondary change due to chronic excoriations in scabies infestations, prurigo nodules usually do not develop in areas such as the midline of the back that are not easily reached by the fingernails,⁷ which made prurigo nodularis less likely in our patient.

This case describes a unique papulonodular variant of scabies presenting in an immunocompromised cancer patient. Timely recognition and diagnosis of atypical scabies infestations can decrease morbidity and improve the quality of life of these patients.

MDedge: What were the earliest acute care medications available for migraine?

Dr. Rapoport: In the 1940s, ergotamine tartrate tablets and sublingual tablets were introduced as therapy to treat migraine. They were not that well absorbed, caused nausea, and were not very effective—but they were the only treatment option. Then, beginning in the early 1990s, doctors began prescribing a class of medications called triptans to stop a migraine in progress. Patients are instructed to quickly take the triptan as soon as they know it is or will be a migraine headache; if they wait too long, it may not work as well—or at all. If they don’t have any improvement in 2 hours, they are encouraged to repeat the dosage, even though it often does not work well.

As I strongly recommend to my patients, triptans should not be used more than 2 days per week. An average of 3 days per week or more is too much, and triptan medications can cause medication overuse headache (MOH). If the patient develops MOH, they usually have more headaches rather than fewer—and the medication stops working well.

These medicines work in about 60% of patients and not so well in the other 40%. They do cause side effects in certain people, which may include some pain in their chest or neck muscles and  constriction of blood vessels. Some patients also feel a warm-to-hot feeling all over, tingling sensation, drowsiness, dizziness, and other side effects. Some will experience these side effects but continue to take these medications because they work; however, some patients can’t take them because they find the side effects to be too bothersome.

The first triptan to be marketed (in 1992) was a 6-mg, self-injected, subcutaneous injection of sumatriptan (Imitrex). Injection was the only available delivery method for a triptan until 1994, when the tablet form became available.

Typically, patients who hadn’t taken the sumatriptan injections preferred to start with the tablets, but the patients who had been taking the injection form were used to it and preferred to keep taking it. They knew that it worked well, and if they had mild side effects, they weren’t troubled by them. However, most new patients, when given a choice, asked for the tablet instead of the injection. In 1996, sumatriptan nasal spray was introduced, which is inconsistently absorbed, and patients report it does not taste or smell good. 

Within a few years, more triptan tablets became available: zolmitriptan (1997), rizatriptan (1998), naratriptan (1998), almotriptan and frovatriptan (2001), and eletriptan (2002). An oral film form of rizatriptan (RizaFilm) was FDA-approved in 2023. The zolmitriptan nasal spray was approved in 2003 and is easy to use, with few adverse effects and good efficacy. There is also a new type of sumatriptan nasal spray (approved in 2019) with a permeation enhancer that makes it adhere to the mucous membranes of the nose and allows it to work faster. It does not have the same disliked taste and smell that caused patients to avoid other similar medications. However, most patients still seem to prefer triptans in tablet form over the nasal spray or injection. 

Now there are a total of 2 triptan nasal sprays and 7 triptans in tablet form, 2 of which are orally disintegrating tablets (ODT), and there are several sumatriptan injections available that come in 3- 4- or 6-mg dosages. 

Do you prefer to prescribe a particular triptan medication to your patients, and if so, why?

Of the different forms of triptans (nasal sprays, tablets, and injections), my favorite is the nasal spray form of zolmitriptan 5 mg (it also comes in 2.5-mg doses, which I sometimes prescribe to pediatric patients). I prefer it because of how quickly it works to provide my patients relief from migraine. All tablets must go down the esophagus, into the stomach, then into the small intestine to the level of the jejunum, where it is absorbed. It then goes to the liver, where it is metabolized, and then (once it finally gets into the bloodstream), it starts working. By contrast, when medication is administered into the nasal cavity, it is quickly absorbed from the mucous membrane and enters the bloodstream there and begins working faster than the tablet does. Zolmitriptan also has fewer side effects than the tablet, and my patients appreciate that. If tablets of triptans do not work, I switch to zolmitriptan nasal spray and, in rare situations, the sumatriptan injection.

When would I switch a patient from a triptan any of the new classes of medicines? 

If a patient takes a triptan at the first sign of migraine and it doesn’t begin to work for 2 hours, that is taking too long. If the triptan relieves only 50% of the head pain, there is a good chance that the headache will linger and later return with a vengeance. That would make me consider switching a patient to one of the other types of migraine medications. Even if the patient repeats the triptan at 2 hours after the first one, it probably won’t be very effective at that point. I also want to know if a patient experiences any side effects from the triptan. If they say it works, but they get chest pain, drowsiness, or dizziness and can’t function, I may want to switch them to a newer medication.

Triptans can stimulate the serotonin 1B receptors on the nerves on the small blood vessels in various parts of the body. Because of that, they may constrict blood vessels, such as the coronary arteries in the heart or others in brain, which could possibly lead to a heart attack or stroke or hypertension in some patients. I might switch a medication from a triptan for a patient who is older (over 50), has high blood pressure or cholesterol, has obesity, does not regularly exercise, or has a family history of a heart attack or stroke at an early age. You really don’t want to constrict blood vessels in these patients and should consider a newer therapy.

Can you tell us more about the nasal sprays for acute care of migraine?

Other than the standard sumatriptan nasal spray, the half-dose of sumatriptan nasal spray with a permeation enhancer, and zolmitriptan nasal spray, there are 2 additional options on the market. They are both dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate, an ergot alkaloid liquid nasal spray. They are identical chemicals with different devices that produce the sprays. The older DHE nasal spray is called Migranal; it is used 1 time in each nostril, then 15 minutes later is repeated. I feel like it takes too long to get the medicine into the bloodstream because the nasal spray only emits a gentle spray that lays on the bottom of the nose. It doesn’t get to the top or back of the nasal cavity, where there are more blood vessels, which would result in better absorption and efficacy. The second nasal spray is called Trudhesa, which came out just a few years ago when another company took the same exact chemical entity and delivered it with a bigger sprayer that fires it up to the top and back of the nose, where it is better absorbed. That nasal spray seems to work better than the old nasal spray. We don’t have data showing how much better it works than the other, but patients tend to like it more. We may also see a fine DHE nasal powder soon, which may take slightly longer to work but with good efficacy that lasts longer.

Have any adverse events been reported with the DHE nasal sprays for migraine?

A patient may experience some pain or burning in the nose, have a funny taste in the mouth, or even experience a change in the way a food tastes for a while after taking the DHE nasal spray. It could also cause some chest discomfort because it stimulates the same receptors as the triptans, plus other receptors as well. 

Are there any newer acute care medications for migraine?

There are 2 newer groups of migraine medications that have come out within the past few years: gepants and a ditan. There are 2 gepants currently available. The first one to be FDA-approved for acute care of migraine (in 2019) was ubrogepant (Ubrelvy), and the second gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec), was approved in 2020. They both work approximately the same way, but they may cause different adverse events. They both sit on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptors. These receptors are all over the body and the brain, but the place where researchers believe they work most effectively is on the first branch of the trigeminal nerve between the brainstem and the meninges. This is the trigeminovascular system. It works outside of the central nervous system and modulates what goes on inside the central nervous system.

Ubrogepant is a regular tablet that has 2 sizes, 50 and 100 mg. I might start a patient on a 50-mg tablet, and I will instruct them to take another dose (up to 200 mg a day) if they have not improved in 2 hours. Rimegepant comes only as a 75-mg ODT, or fast melt tablet which means a patient can put it on their tongue and they don’t need water with it. For example, if a patient is stuck on an interstate in a traffic jam at rush hour, is getting a terrible headache, and doesn’t happen to have water, they could just place the tablet it in their mouth, where it will dissolve in 5 to 10 seconds. A second dose doesn’t seem to be necessary; if the headache persists, I will switch to another type of medication that day.

The other category of acute migraine medicine that has been approved in the last few years is called a ditan. Only 1 ditan in the class is available right now, lasmiditan (Reyvow). It was FDA-approved in 2019 and works a little bit differently from the gepants, as it’s more like a triptan. Instead of stimulating the serotonin 1B and 1D receptors, it stimulates the serotonin 1F receptor. This is important because it doesn’t stimulate the 1B receptor and therefore doesn’t constrict blood vessels. The one good thing about this medication is it can be prescribed to an older patient or a patient that has any kind of coronary artery risk factors like smoking or obesity. It does enter the central nervous system to begin working, and when a drug does that, it’s more likely to have different side effects, such as dizziness or drowsiness—and this medication does cause both. The drug works well, but the side effects must be carefully observed. Patients are advised not to drive a car or operate machinery for 8 hours after taking this drug.

The advancements in the pharmacologic treatment options for the acute care of migraine offer a wide range of options for patients with migraine—allowing for more personalized and effective approaches for relief, with fewer adverse events than ever before.

MDedge: What were the earliest acute care medications available for migraine?

Dr. Rapoport: In the 1940s, ergotamine tartrate tablets and sublingual tablets were introduced as therapy to treat migraine. They were not that well absorbed, caused nausea, and were not very effective—but they were the only treatment option. Then, beginning in the early 1990s, doctors began prescribing a class of medications called triptans to stop a migraine in progress. Patients are instructed to quickly take the triptan as soon as they know it is or will be a migraine headache; if they wait too long, it may not work as well—or at all. If they don’t have any improvement in 2 hours, they are encouraged to repeat the dosage, even though it often does not work well.

As I strongly recommend to my patients, triptans should not be used more than 2 days per week. An average of 3 days per week or more is too much, and triptan medications can cause medication overuse headache (MOH). If the patient develops MOH, they usually have more headaches rather than fewer—and the medication stops working well.

These medicines work in about 60% of patients and not so well in the other 40%. They do cause side effects in certain people, which may include some pain in their chest or neck muscles and  constriction of blood vessels. Some patients also feel a warm-to-hot feeling all over, tingling sensation, drowsiness, dizziness, and other side effects. Some will experience these side effects but continue to take these medications because they work; however, some patients can’t take them because they find the side effects to be too bothersome.

The first triptan to be marketed (in 1992) was a 6-mg, self-injected, subcutaneous injection of sumatriptan (Imitrex). Injection was the only available delivery method for a triptan until 1994, when the tablet form became available.

Typically, patients who hadn’t taken the sumatriptan injections preferred to start with the tablets, but the patients who had been taking the injection form were used to it and preferred to keep taking it. They knew that it worked well, and if they had mild side effects, they weren’t troubled by them. However, most new patients, when given a choice, asked for the tablet instead of the injection. In 1996, sumatriptan nasal spray was introduced, which is inconsistently absorbed, and patients report it does not taste or smell good. 

Within a few years, more triptan tablets became available: zolmitriptan (1997), rizatriptan (1998), naratriptan (1998), almotriptan and frovatriptan (2001), and eletriptan (2002). An oral film form of rizatriptan (RizaFilm) was FDA-approved in 2023. The zolmitriptan nasal spray was approved in 2003 and is easy to use, with few adverse effects and good efficacy. There is also a new type of sumatriptan nasal spray (approved in 2019) with a permeation enhancer that makes it adhere to the mucous membranes of the nose and allows it to work faster. It does not have the same disliked taste and smell that caused patients to avoid other similar medications. However, most patients still seem to prefer triptans in tablet form over the nasal spray or injection. 

Now there are a total of 2 triptan nasal sprays and 7 triptans in tablet form, 2 of which are orally disintegrating tablets (ODT), and there are several sumatriptan injections available that come in 3- 4- or 6-mg dosages. 

Do you prefer to prescribe a particular triptan medication to your patients, and if so, why?

Of the different forms of triptans (nasal sprays, tablets, and injections), my favorite is the nasal spray form of zolmitriptan 5 mg (it also comes in 2.5-mg doses, which I sometimes prescribe to pediatric patients). I prefer it because of how quickly it works to provide my patients relief from migraine. All tablets must go down the esophagus, into the stomach, then into the small intestine to the level of the jejunum, where it is absorbed. It then goes to the liver, where it is metabolized, and then (once it finally gets into the bloodstream), it starts working. By contrast, when medication is administered into the nasal cavity, it is quickly absorbed from the mucous membrane and enters the bloodstream there and begins working faster than the tablet does. Zolmitriptan also has fewer side effects than the tablet, and my patients appreciate that. If tablets of triptans do not work, I switch to zolmitriptan nasal spray and, in rare situations, the sumatriptan injection.

When would I switch a patient from a triptan any of the new classes of medicines? 

If a patient takes a triptan at the first sign of migraine and it doesn’t begin to work for 2 hours, that is taking too long. If the triptan relieves only 50% of the head pain, there is a good chance that the headache will linger and later return with a vengeance. That would make me consider switching a patient to one of the other types of migraine medications. Even if the patient repeats the triptan at 2 hours after the first one, it probably won’t be very effective at that point. I also want to know if a patient experiences any side effects from the triptan. If they say it works, but they get chest pain, drowsiness, or dizziness and can’t function, I may want to switch them to a newer medication.

Triptans can stimulate the serotonin 1B receptors on the nerves on the small blood vessels in various parts of the body. Because of that, they may constrict blood vessels, such as the coronary arteries in the heart or others in brain, which could possibly lead to a heart attack or stroke or hypertension in some patients. I might switch a medication from a triptan for a patient who is older (over 50), has high blood pressure or cholesterol, has obesity, does not regularly exercise, or has a family history of a heart attack or stroke at an early age. You really don’t want to constrict blood vessels in these patients and should consider a newer therapy.

Can you tell us more about the nasal sprays for acute care of migraine?

Other than the standard sumatriptan nasal spray, the half-dose of sumatriptan nasal spray with a permeation enhancer, and zolmitriptan nasal spray, there are 2 additional options on the market. They are both dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate, an ergot alkaloid liquid nasal spray. They are identical chemicals with different devices that produce the sprays. The older DHE nasal spray is called Migranal; it is used 1 time in each nostril, then 15 minutes later is repeated. I feel like it takes too long to get the medicine into the bloodstream because the nasal spray only emits a gentle spray that lays on the bottom of the nose. It doesn’t get to the top or back of the nasal cavity, where there are more blood vessels, which would result in better absorption and efficacy. The second nasal spray is called Trudhesa, which came out just a few years ago when another company took the same exact chemical entity and delivered it with a bigger sprayer that fires it up to the top and back of the nose, where it is better absorbed. That nasal spray seems to work better than the old nasal spray. We don’t have data showing how much better it works than the other, but patients tend to like it more. We may also see a fine DHE nasal powder soon, which may take slightly longer to work but with good efficacy that lasts longer.

Have any adverse events been reported with the DHE nasal sprays for migraine?

A patient may experience some pain or burning in the nose, have a funny taste in the mouth, or even experience a change in the way a food tastes for a while after taking the DHE nasal spray. It could also cause some chest discomfort because it stimulates the same receptors as the triptans, plus other receptors as well. 

Are there any newer acute care medications for migraine?

There are 2 newer groups of migraine medications that have come out within the past few years: gepants and a ditan. There are 2 gepants currently available. The first one to be FDA-approved for acute care of migraine (in 2019) was ubrogepant (Ubrelvy), and the second gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec), was approved in 2020. They both work approximately the same way, but they may cause different adverse events. They both sit on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptors. These receptors are all over the body and the brain, but the place where researchers believe they work most effectively is on the first branch of the trigeminal nerve between the brainstem and the meninges. This is the trigeminovascular system. It works outside of the central nervous system and modulates what goes on inside the central nervous system.

Ubrogepant is a regular tablet that has 2 sizes, 50 and 100 mg. I might start a patient on a 50-mg tablet, and I will instruct them to take another dose (up to 200 mg a day) if they have not improved in 2 hours. Rimegepant comes only as a 75-mg ODT, or fast melt tablet which means a patient can put it on their tongue and they don’t need water with it. For example, if a patient is stuck on an interstate in a traffic jam at rush hour, is getting a terrible headache, and doesn’t happen to have water, they could just place the tablet it in their mouth, where it will dissolve in 5 to 10 seconds. A second dose doesn’t seem to be necessary; if the headache persists, I will switch to another type of medication that day.

The other category of acute migraine medicine that has been approved in the last few years is called a ditan. Only 1 ditan in the class is available right now, lasmiditan (Reyvow). It was FDA-approved in 2019 and works a little bit differently from the gepants, as it’s more like a triptan. Instead of stimulating the serotonin 1B and 1D receptors, it stimulates the serotonin 1F receptor. This is important because it doesn’t stimulate the 1B receptor and therefore doesn’t constrict blood vessels. The one good thing about this medication is it can be prescribed to an older patient or a patient that has any kind of coronary artery risk factors like smoking or obesity. It does enter the central nervous system to begin working, and when a drug does that, it’s more likely to have different side effects, such as dizziness or drowsiness—and this medication does cause both. The drug works well, but the side effects must be carefully observed. Patients are advised not to drive a car or operate machinery for 8 hours after taking this drug.

The advancements in the pharmacologic treatment options for the acute care of migraine offer a wide range of options for patients with migraine—allowing for more personalized and effective approaches for relief, with fewer adverse events than ever before.

MDedge: What were the earliest acute care medications available for migraine?

Dr. Rapoport: In the 1940s, ergotamine tartrate tablets and sublingual tablets were introduced as therapy to treat migraine. They were not that well absorbed, caused nausea, and were not very effective—but they were the only treatment option. Then, beginning in the early 1990s, doctors began prescribing a class of medications called triptans to stop a migraine in progress. Patients are instructed to quickly take the triptan as soon as they know it is or will be a migraine headache; if they wait too long, it may not work as well—or at all. If they don’t have any improvement in 2 hours, they are encouraged to repeat the dosage, even though it often does not work well.

As I strongly recommend to my patients, triptans should not be used more than 2 days per week. An average of 3 days per week or more is too much, and triptan medications can cause medication overuse headache (MOH). If the patient develops MOH, they usually have more headaches rather than fewer—and the medication stops working well.

These medicines work in about 60% of patients and not so well in the other 40%. They do cause side effects in certain people, which may include some pain in their chest or neck muscles and  constriction of blood vessels. Some patients also feel a warm-to-hot feeling all over, tingling sensation, drowsiness, dizziness, and other side effects. Some will experience these side effects but continue to take these medications because they work; however, some patients can’t take them because they find the side effects to be too bothersome.

The first triptan to be marketed (in 1992) was a 6-mg, self-injected, subcutaneous injection of sumatriptan (Imitrex). Injection was the only available delivery method for a triptan until 1994, when the tablet form became available.

Typically, patients who hadn’t taken the sumatriptan injections preferred to start with the tablets, but the patients who had been taking the injection form were used to it and preferred to keep taking it. They knew that it worked well, and if they had mild side effects, they weren’t troubled by them. However, most new patients, when given a choice, asked for the tablet instead of the injection. In 1996, sumatriptan nasal spray was introduced, which is inconsistently absorbed, and patients report it does not taste or smell good. 

Within a few years, more triptan tablets became available: zolmitriptan (1997), rizatriptan (1998), naratriptan (1998), almotriptan and frovatriptan (2001), and eletriptan (2002). An oral film form of rizatriptan (RizaFilm) was FDA-approved in 2023. The zolmitriptan nasal spray was approved in 2003 and is easy to use, with few adverse effects and good efficacy. There is also a new type of sumatriptan nasal spray (approved in 2019) with a permeation enhancer that makes it adhere to the mucous membranes of the nose and allows it to work faster. It does not have the same disliked taste and smell that caused patients to avoid other similar medications. However, most patients still seem to prefer triptans in tablet form over the nasal spray or injection. 

Now there are a total of 2 triptan nasal sprays and 7 triptans in tablet form, 2 of which are orally disintegrating tablets (ODT), and there are several sumatriptan injections available that come in 3- 4- or 6-mg dosages. 

Do you prefer to prescribe a particular triptan medication to your patients, and if so, why?

Of the different forms of triptans (nasal sprays, tablets, and injections), my favorite is the nasal spray form of zolmitriptan 5 mg (it also comes in 2.5-mg doses, which I sometimes prescribe to pediatric patients). I prefer it because of how quickly it works to provide my patients relief from migraine. All tablets must go down the esophagus, into the stomach, then into the small intestine to the level of the jejunum, where it is absorbed. It then goes to the liver, where it is metabolized, and then (once it finally gets into the bloodstream), it starts working. By contrast, when medication is administered into the nasal cavity, it is quickly absorbed from the mucous membrane and enters the bloodstream there and begins working faster than the tablet does. Zolmitriptan also has fewer side effects than the tablet, and my patients appreciate that. If tablets of triptans do not work, I switch to zolmitriptan nasal spray and, in rare situations, the sumatriptan injection.

When would I switch a patient from a triptan any of the new classes of medicines? 

If a patient takes a triptan at the first sign of migraine and it doesn’t begin to work for 2 hours, that is taking too long. If the triptan relieves only 50% of the head pain, there is a good chance that the headache will linger and later return with a vengeance. That would make me consider switching a patient to one of the other types of migraine medications. Even if the patient repeats the triptan at 2 hours after the first one, it probably won’t be very effective at that point. I also want to know if a patient experiences any side effects from the triptan. If they say it works, but they get chest pain, drowsiness, or dizziness and can’t function, I may want to switch them to a newer medication.

Triptans can stimulate the serotonin 1B receptors on the nerves on the small blood vessels in various parts of the body. Because of that, they may constrict blood vessels, such as the coronary arteries in the heart or others in brain, which could possibly lead to a heart attack or stroke or hypertension in some patients. I might switch a medication from a triptan for a patient who is older (over 50), has high blood pressure or cholesterol, has obesity, does not regularly exercise, or has a family history of a heart attack or stroke at an early age. You really don’t want to constrict blood vessels in these patients and should consider a newer therapy.

Can you tell us more about the nasal sprays for acute care of migraine?

Other than the standard sumatriptan nasal spray, the half-dose of sumatriptan nasal spray with a permeation enhancer, and zolmitriptan nasal spray, there are 2 additional options on the market. They are both dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate, an ergot alkaloid liquid nasal spray. They are identical chemicals with different devices that produce the sprays. The older DHE nasal spray is called Migranal; it is used 1 time in each nostril, then 15 minutes later is repeated. I feel like it takes too long to get the medicine into the bloodstream because the nasal spray only emits a gentle spray that lays on the bottom of the nose. It doesn’t get to the top or back of the nasal cavity, where there are more blood vessels, which would result in better absorption and efficacy. The second nasal spray is called Trudhesa, which came out just a few years ago when another company took the same exact chemical entity and delivered it with a bigger sprayer that fires it up to the top and back of the nose, where it is better absorbed. That nasal spray seems to work better than the old nasal spray. We don’t have data showing how much better it works than the other, but patients tend to like it more. We may also see a fine DHE nasal powder soon, which may take slightly longer to work but with good efficacy that lasts longer.

Have any adverse events been reported with the DHE nasal sprays for migraine?

A patient may experience some pain or burning in the nose, have a funny taste in the mouth, or even experience a change in the way a food tastes for a while after taking the DHE nasal spray. It could also cause some chest discomfort because it stimulates the same receptors as the triptans, plus other receptors as well. 

Are there any newer acute care medications for migraine?

There are 2 newer groups of migraine medications that have come out within the past few years: gepants and a ditan. There are 2 gepants currently available. The first one to be FDA-approved for acute care of migraine (in 2019) was ubrogepant (Ubrelvy), and the second gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec), was approved in 2020. They both work approximately the same way, but they may cause different adverse events. They both sit on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptors. These receptors are all over the body and the brain, but the place where researchers believe they work most effectively is on the first branch of the trigeminal nerve between the brainstem and the meninges. This is the trigeminovascular system. It works outside of the central nervous system and modulates what goes on inside the central nervous system.

Ubrogepant is a regular tablet that has 2 sizes, 50 and 100 mg. I might start a patient on a 50-mg tablet, and I will instruct them to take another dose (up to 200 mg a day) if they have not improved in 2 hours. Rimegepant comes only as a 75-mg ODT, or fast melt tablet which means a patient can put it on their tongue and they don’t need water with it. For example, if a patient is stuck on an interstate in a traffic jam at rush hour, is getting a terrible headache, and doesn’t happen to have water, they could just place the tablet it in their mouth, where it will dissolve in 5 to 10 seconds. A second dose doesn’t seem to be necessary; if the headache persists, I will switch to another type of medication that day.

The other category of acute migraine medicine that has been approved in the last few years is called a ditan. Only 1 ditan in the class is available right now, lasmiditan (Reyvow). It was FDA-approved in 2019 and works a little bit differently from the gepants, as it’s more like a triptan. Instead of stimulating the serotonin 1B and 1D receptors, it stimulates the serotonin 1F receptor. This is important because it doesn’t stimulate the 1B receptor and therefore doesn’t constrict blood vessels. The one good thing about this medication is it can be prescribed to an older patient or a patient that has any kind of coronary artery risk factors like smoking or obesity. It does enter the central nervous system to begin working, and when a drug does that, it’s more likely to have different side effects, such as dizziness or drowsiness—and this medication does cause both. The drug works well, but the side effects must be carefully observed. Patients are advised not to drive a car or operate machinery for 8 hours after taking this drug.

The advancements in the pharmacologic treatment options for the acute care of migraine offer a wide range of options for patients with migraine—allowing for more personalized and effective approaches for relief, with fewer adverse events than ever before.