Initiating treatment may become easier for adults living with HIV. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a label update that allows adults living with HIV to begin treatment with Cabenuva, a combination injectable, without a lead-in period of oral tablets, according to a press release from Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

Cabenuva combines rilpivirine (Janssen) and cabotegravir (ViiV Healthcare). The change offers patients and clinicians an option for a streamlined entry to treatment without the burden of daily pill taking, according to the release.

Cabenuva injections may be given as few as six times a year to manage HIV, according to Janssen. HIV patients with viral suppression previously had to complete an oral treatment regimen before starting monthly or bimonthly injections.

The injectable combination of cabotegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor, and rilpivirine, an HIV-1 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, is currently indicated as a complete treatment regimen to replace the current antiretroviral regimen for adults with HIV who are virologically suppressed,” according to the press release.

“Janssen and ViiV are exploring the future possibility of an ultra–long-acting version of Cabenuva, which could reduce the frequency of injections even further, according to the press release.
 

Access may improve, but barriers persist

“Despite advances in HIV care, many barriers remain, particularly for the most vulnerable populations,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

“Care engagement has improved with the use of bridge counselors, rapid ART [antiretroviral therapy] initiation policies, and contact tracing,” she said. “Similarly, increasing access to multiple modalities of HIV treatment is critical to increase engagement in care.

“For patients, removing the oral lead-in primarily reduces the number of clinical visits to start injectable ART,” Dr. Rosengren-Hovee added. “It may also remove adherence barriers for patients who have difficulty taking a daily oral medication.”

But Dr. Rosengren-Hovee (who has no financial connection to the manufacturers) pointed out that access to Cabenuva may not be seamless. “Unless the medication is stocked in clinics, patients are not likely to receive their first injection during the initial visit. Labs are also required prior to initiation to ensure there is no contraindication to the medication, such as viral resistance to one of its components. Cost and insurance coverage are also likely to remain major obstacles.”

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initiating treatment may become easier for adults living with HIV. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a label update that allows adults living with HIV to begin treatment with Cabenuva, a combination injectable, without a lead-in period of oral tablets, according to a press release from Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

Cabenuva combines rilpivirine (Janssen) and cabotegravir (ViiV Healthcare). The change offers patients and clinicians an option for a streamlined entry to treatment without the burden of daily pill taking, according to the release.

Cabenuva injections may be given as few as six times a year to manage HIV, according to Janssen. HIV patients with viral suppression previously had to complete an oral treatment regimen before starting monthly or bimonthly injections.

The injectable combination of cabotegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor, and rilpivirine, an HIV-1 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, is currently indicated as a complete treatment regimen to replace the current antiretroviral regimen for adults with HIV who are virologically suppressed,” according to the press release.

“Janssen and ViiV are exploring the future possibility of an ultra–long-acting version of Cabenuva, which could reduce the frequency of injections even further, according to the press release.
 

Access may improve, but barriers persist

“Despite advances in HIV care, many barriers remain, particularly for the most vulnerable populations,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

“Care engagement has improved with the use of bridge counselors, rapid ART [antiretroviral therapy] initiation policies, and contact tracing,” she said. “Similarly, increasing access to multiple modalities of HIV treatment is critical to increase engagement in care.

“For patients, removing the oral lead-in primarily reduces the number of clinical visits to start injectable ART,” Dr. Rosengren-Hovee added. “It may also remove adherence barriers for patients who have difficulty taking a daily oral medication.”

But Dr. Rosengren-Hovee (who has no financial connection to the manufacturers) pointed out that access to Cabenuva may not be seamless. “Unless the medication is stocked in clinics, patients are not likely to receive their first injection during the initial visit. Labs are also required prior to initiation to ensure there is no contraindication to the medication, such as viral resistance to one of its components. Cost and insurance coverage are also likely to remain major obstacles.”

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initiating treatment may become easier for adults living with HIV. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a label update that allows adults living with HIV to begin treatment with Cabenuva, a combination injectable, without a lead-in period of oral tablets, according to a press release from Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

Cabenuva combines rilpivirine (Janssen) and cabotegravir (ViiV Healthcare). The change offers patients and clinicians an option for a streamlined entry to treatment without the burden of daily pill taking, according to the release.

Cabenuva injections may be given as few as six times a year to manage HIV, according to Janssen. HIV patients with viral suppression previously had to complete an oral treatment regimen before starting monthly or bimonthly injections.

The injectable combination of cabotegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor, and rilpivirine, an HIV-1 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, is currently indicated as a complete treatment regimen to replace the current antiretroviral regimen for adults with HIV who are virologically suppressed,” according to the press release.

“Janssen and ViiV are exploring the future possibility of an ultra–long-acting version of Cabenuva, which could reduce the frequency of injections even further, according to the press release.
 

Access may improve, but barriers persist

“Despite advances in HIV care, many barriers remain, particularly for the most vulnerable populations,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

“Care engagement has improved with the use of bridge counselors, rapid ART [antiretroviral therapy] initiation policies, and contact tracing,” she said. “Similarly, increasing access to multiple modalities of HIV treatment is critical to increase engagement in care.

“For patients, removing the oral lead-in primarily reduces the number of clinical visits to start injectable ART,” Dr. Rosengren-Hovee added. “It may also remove adherence barriers for patients who have difficulty taking a daily oral medication.”

But Dr. Rosengren-Hovee (who has no financial connection to the manufacturers) pointed out that access to Cabenuva may not be seamless. “Unless the medication is stocked in clinics, patients are not likely to receive their first injection during the initial visit. Labs are also required prior to initiation to ensure there is no contraindication to the medication, such as viral resistance to one of its components. Cost and insurance coverage are also likely to remain major obstacles.”

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psychedelics, including psilocybin and MDMA, are promising for a variety of psychiatric disorders, but there are few data showing how these drugs interact with traditional psychiatric medications, new research shows.

“Despite prolific psychedelic research and public interest, I was surprised to see little clinical research on how psilocybin and common psychiatric treatments interact,” study investigator Aryan Sarparast, MD, department of psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, told this news organization.

The review was published online March 7, 2022, in Psychopharmacology.
 

Need for RCTs

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted breakthrough therapy designation to psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for major depression and treatment-resistant depression and to MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD.

The investigators assessed the volume of available research on interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications, such as antidepressants.

They found 40 studies dating back to 1958, including 26 randomized controlled trials, 11 case reports, and 3 epidemiologic studies.

Only one randomized clinical trial evaluated the interaction between psilocybin and the most common psychiatric treatment, SSRIs, said Dr. Sarparast.

However, this study is “reassuring and overlaps with our hypothesis that there is a low risk of psilocybin and most psychiatric drugs causing harm when combined,” he noted.

Yet all of the clinical trials exclusively included young healthy adults, who were often recruited from university campuses. “We don’t have data on what happens when a depressed person on an SSRI takes psilocybin,” said Dr. Sarparast.

He added that he is concerned that the lack of evidence on drug-drug interactions will lead some providers to require patients to be tapered off existing traditional psychiatric medications before initiation of psilocybin therapy.

This may force vulnerable patients to choose between their existing therapy and psilocybin.

In addition, patients who opt for the “DIY method” of tapering risk mental health relapse and medication withdrawal effects. “That’s a very, very tough place to be,” Dr. Sarparast said.

Ideally, Dr. Sarparast would like to see a study in which depressed patients who have been receiving long-term antidepressant treatment are randomly assigned to received low, medium, and high doses of psilocybin. “This would clarify a lot of question marks.”
 

Evidence gap

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said: “The point in this article is very well taken. Indeed, more research is needed” on potential interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications.

“Before we embark on completing research and development for psychedelics – or, for that matter, any psychoactive substance – we should endeavor to identify what the potential safety and toxicity concerns are when they are coprescribed with other prescribed medications, over-the-counter medications, and other substances (e.g., marijuana) that people take,” Dr. McIntyre said.

A case in point – a 2017 study conducted by McIntyre and colleagues revealed “significant drug-drug interactions with cannabis, which never receives that much attention.”

Also weighing in, Albert Garcia-Romeu, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, confirmed that there is “an evidence gap” on psilocybin’s and other psychedelic drugs’ interactions with other medications.

“This has not been formally studied for a number of reasons, but mainly because psilocybin has primarily been considered a drug of abuse. Psilocybin has only recently started to be looked at as a potential medication, and as such, research on drug-drug interactions is still limited, but growing,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu told this news organization.

He noted that studies are underway to better understand potential interactions between psilocybin and other medications.

“This will allow us to better understand how psilocybin should be used medically and what types of interactions could occur with other drugs or medications,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sarparast, Dr. McIntyre, and Dr. Garcia-Romeu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psychedelics, including psilocybin and MDMA, are promising for a variety of psychiatric disorders, but there are few data showing how these drugs interact with traditional psychiatric medications, new research shows.

“Despite prolific psychedelic research and public interest, I was surprised to see little clinical research on how psilocybin and common psychiatric treatments interact,” study investigator Aryan Sarparast, MD, department of psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, told this news organization.

The review was published online March 7, 2022, in Psychopharmacology.
 

Need for RCTs

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted breakthrough therapy designation to psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for major depression and treatment-resistant depression and to MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD.

The investigators assessed the volume of available research on interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications, such as antidepressants.

They found 40 studies dating back to 1958, including 26 randomized controlled trials, 11 case reports, and 3 epidemiologic studies.

Only one randomized clinical trial evaluated the interaction between psilocybin and the most common psychiatric treatment, SSRIs, said Dr. Sarparast.

However, this study is “reassuring and overlaps with our hypothesis that there is a low risk of psilocybin and most psychiatric drugs causing harm when combined,” he noted.

Yet all of the clinical trials exclusively included young healthy adults, who were often recruited from university campuses. “We don’t have data on what happens when a depressed person on an SSRI takes psilocybin,” said Dr. Sarparast.

He added that he is concerned that the lack of evidence on drug-drug interactions will lead some providers to require patients to be tapered off existing traditional psychiatric medications before initiation of psilocybin therapy.

This may force vulnerable patients to choose between their existing therapy and psilocybin.

In addition, patients who opt for the “DIY method” of tapering risk mental health relapse and medication withdrawal effects. “That’s a very, very tough place to be,” Dr. Sarparast said.

Ideally, Dr. Sarparast would like to see a study in which depressed patients who have been receiving long-term antidepressant treatment are randomly assigned to received low, medium, and high doses of psilocybin. “This would clarify a lot of question marks.”
 

Evidence gap

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said: “The point in this article is very well taken. Indeed, more research is needed” on potential interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications.

“Before we embark on completing research and development for psychedelics – or, for that matter, any psychoactive substance – we should endeavor to identify what the potential safety and toxicity concerns are when they are coprescribed with other prescribed medications, over-the-counter medications, and other substances (e.g., marijuana) that people take,” Dr. McIntyre said.

A case in point – a 2017 study conducted by McIntyre and colleagues revealed “significant drug-drug interactions with cannabis, which never receives that much attention.”

Also weighing in, Albert Garcia-Romeu, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, confirmed that there is “an evidence gap” on psilocybin’s and other psychedelic drugs’ interactions with other medications.

“This has not been formally studied for a number of reasons, but mainly because psilocybin has primarily been considered a drug of abuse. Psilocybin has only recently started to be looked at as a potential medication, and as such, research on drug-drug interactions is still limited, but growing,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu told this news organization.

He noted that studies are underway to better understand potential interactions between psilocybin and other medications.

“This will allow us to better understand how psilocybin should be used medically and what types of interactions could occur with other drugs or medications,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sarparast, Dr. McIntyre, and Dr. Garcia-Romeu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psychedelics, including psilocybin and MDMA, are promising for a variety of psychiatric disorders, but there are few data showing how these drugs interact with traditional psychiatric medications, new research shows.

“Despite prolific psychedelic research and public interest, I was surprised to see little clinical research on how psilocybin and common psychiatric treatments interact,” study investigator Aryan Sarparast, MD, department of psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, told this news organization.

The review was published online March 7, 2022, in Psychopharmacology.
 

Need for RCTs

The Food and Drug Administration recently granted breakthrough therapy designation to psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for major depression and treatment-resistant depression and to MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD.

The investigators assessed the volume of available research on interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications, such as antidepressants.

They found 40 studies dating back to 1958, including 26 randomized controlled trials, 11 case reports, and 3 epidemiologic studies.

Only one randomized clinical trial evaluated the interaction between psilocybin and the most common psychiatric treatment, SSRIs, said Dr. Sarparast.

However, this study is “reassuring and overlaps with our hypothesis that there is a low risk of psilocybin and most psychiatric drugs causing harm when combined,” he noted.

Yet all of the clinical trials exclusively included young healthy adults, who were often recruited from university campuses. “We don’t have data on what happens when a depressed person on an SSRI takes psilocybin,” said Dr. Sarparast.

He added that he is concerned that the lack of evidence on drug-drug interactions will lead some providers to require patients to be tapered off existing traditional psychiatric medications before initiation of psilocybin therapy.

This may force vulnerable patients to choose between their existing therapy and psilocybin.

In addition, patients who opt for the “DIY method” of tapering risk mental health relapse and medication withdrawal effects. “That’s a very, very tough place to be,” Dr. Sarparast said.

Ideally, Dr. Sarparast would like to see a study in which depressed patients who have been receiving long-term antidepressant treatment are randomly assigned to received low, medium, and high doses of psilocybin. “This would clarify a lot of question marks.”
 

Evidence gap

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, said: “The point in this article is very well taken. Indeed, more research is needed” on potential interactions between psychedelics and traditional psychiatric medications.

“Before we embark on completing research and development for psychedelics – or, for that matter, any psychoactive substance – we should endeavor to identify what the potential safety and toxicity concerns are when they are coprescribed with other prescribed medications, over-the-counter medications, and other substances (e.g., marijuana) that people take,” Dr. McIntyre said.

A case in point – a 2017 study conducted by McIntyre and colleagues revealed “significant drug-drug interactions with cannabis, which never receives that much attention.”

Also weighing in, Albert Garcia-Romeu, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, confirmed that there is “an evidence gap” on psilocybin’s and other psychedelic drugs’ interactions with other medications.

“This has not been formally studied for a number of reasons, but mainly because psilocybin has primarily been considered a drug of abuse. Psilocybin has only recently started to be looked at as a potential medication, and as such, research on drug-drug interactions is still limited, but growing,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu told this news organization.

He noted that studies are underway to better understand potential interactions between psilocybin and other medications.

“This will allow us to better understand how psilocybin should be used medically and what types of interactions could occur with other drugs or medications,” Dr. Garcia-Romeu added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Sarparast, Dr. McIntyre, and Dr. Garcia-Romeu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Before working to create standards for electronic prior authorization, the entire process itself needs some work.

That was the message from groups representing physicians, medical practices, and hospitals in response to a request for input from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). In January, ONC requested public feedback on how making the process for insurer approvals digital can “ease the burden of prior authorization tasks on patients, providers, and payers.”

According to a study conducted by America’s Health Insurance Plans, 71% of providers who implemented electronic prior authorization experienced “faster time to patient care.” The organization, which represents many of the nation’s health insurers, also reported that electronic prior authorization reduced the time it took to receive a decision by a health plan by 69%.

In its response to ONC, the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) called out prior authorization as a “leading cause of physician burden” and wrote that the organization is “strongly supportive of efforts to reform and streamline the prior authorization process.”

AAFP, which represents 127,600 family physicians, residents, and students, cited in its comments an AMA survey in which 88% of physicians said that prior authorization “generates high or extremely high administrative burden” for their practices. Practices are responsible for an average of 41 prior authorizations per physician each week, which can take almost 2 days of a physician’s time each week, according to the AAFP.

Delayed care, increased confusion, reduced treatment adherence, and even discontinuation of treatment are some of the harms prior authorization causes patients, wrote AAFP board chair Ada D. Stewart, MD.

Electronic prior authorization is “just one step in addressing the flaws of utilization management practices, and comprehensive reform is needed to reduce the volume of prior authorizations and ensure patients’ timely access to care,” wrote Dr. Stewart.
 

AHA: Most common prior auth means are phones, fax

The American Hospital Association (AHA) highlighted the variety of prior authorization requests from different payers, writing, “While some plans accept electronic means, the most common method remains using fax machines and contacting call centers, with regular hold times of 20 to 30 minutes.”

The AHA’s Senior Vice President Ashley Thompson wrote that the various prior authorization processes required by payers take up staff time and increase the chance of data entry errors.

To fix this, the AHA calls for an “end-to-end automated prior authorization process that integrates with clinicians’ EHR workflow.” According to the AHA, this approach can help physicians have access to the required prior authorization information during treatment planning.

In response to the federal agency’s question about the functional capabilities for certified health IT modules to facilitate electronic prior authorization, the AAFP wrote that the standards should include communicating to providers the expected timeline from a payer on a response, the ability to access payers’ reasoning for denials, and the creation of a process for appealing decisions.

The ONC also asked for input on the use of three fast health care interoperability resources (FHIR)–based Da Vinci implementation guides in electronic prior authorization.

Developed by the Da Vinci Project in coordination with the HL7 Clinical Decision Support Workgroup, the FHIR-based implementation guides create a mechanism for reducing the burden on provider organizations and simplifying processes by establishing electronic versions of administrative and clinical requirements that are a part of providers’ workflow.

In its response, the AHA requested that prior authorization solutions “be fully developed and tested prior to wide scale industry rollout.”

The AAFP largely agreed with the AHA in its response, writing, “Only standards and [implementation guides] that have been proven effective and adoptable in real world testing should be candidates for mandatory certification and utilization, including the Da Vinci standards.”

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), which represents more than 60,000 medical practice administrators, executives, and leaders, supports the idea that electronic prior authorization “has the potential to decrease administrative burden through automation but only if implemented properly.”

In its comments, the MGMA called for broader reform of prior authorization. One way to accomplish that goal is by aligning electronic prior authorization standards “with payment and quality reporting programs, as well as care delivery models, to minimize burden and overhead costs.”

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

Before working to create standards for electronic prior authorization, the entire process itself needs some work.

That was the message from groups representing physicians, medical practices, and hospitals in response to a request for input from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). In January, ONC requested public feedback on how making the process for insurer approvals digital can “ease the burden of prior authorization tasks on patients, providers, and payers.”

According to a study conducted by America’s Health Insurance Plans, 71% of providers who implemented electronic prior authorization experienced “faster time to patient care.” The organization, which represents many of the nation’s health insurers, also reported that electronic prior authorization reduced the time it took to receive a decision by a health plan by 69%.

In its response to ONC, the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) called out prior authorization as a “leading cause of physician burden” and wrote that the organization is “strongly supportive of efforts to reform and streamline the prior authorization process.”

AAFP, which represents 127,600 family physicians, residents, and students, cited in its comments an AMA survey in which 88% of physicians said that prior authorization “generates high or extremely high administrative burden” for their practices. Practices are responsible for an average of 41 prior authorizations per physician each week, which can take almost 2 days of a physician’s time each week, according to the AAFP.

Delayed care, increased confusion, reduced treatment adherence, and even discontinuation of treatment are some of the harms prior authorization causes patients, wrote AAFP board chair Ada D. Stewart, MD.

Electronic prior authorization is “just one step in addressing the flaws of utilization management practices, and comprehensive reform is needed to reduce the volume of prior authorizations and ensure patients’ timely access to care,” wrote Dr. Stewart.
 

AHA: Most common prior auth means are phones, fax

The American Hospital Association (AHA) highlighted the variety of prior authorization requests from different payers, writing, “While some plans accept electronic means, the most common method remains using fax machines and contacting call centers, with regular hold times of 20 to 30 minutes.”

The AHA’s Senior Vice President Ashley Thompson wrote that the various prior authorization processes required by payers take up staff time and increase the chance of data entry errors.

To fix this, the AHA calls for an “end-to-end automated prior authorization process that integrates with clinicians’ EHR workflow.” According to the AHA, this approach can help physicians have access to the required prior authorization information during treatment planning.

In response to the federal agency’s question about the functional capabilities for certified health IT modules to facilitate electronic prior authorization, the AAFP wrote that the standards should include communicating to providers the expected timeline from a payer on a response, the ability to access payers’ reasoning for denials, and the creation of a process for appealing decisions.

The ONC also asked for input on the use of three fast health care interoperability resources (FHIR)–based Da Vinci implementation guides in electronic prior authorization.

Developed by the Da Vinci Project in coordination with the HL7 Clinical Decision Support Workgroup, the FHIR-based implementation guides create a mechanism for reducing the burden on provider organizations and simplifying processes by establishing electronic versions of administrative and clinical requirements that are a part of providers’ workflow.

In its response, the AHA requested that prior authorization solutions “be fully developed and tested prior to wide scale industry rollout.”

The AAFP largely agreed with the AHA in its response, writing, “Only standards and [implementation guides] that have been proven effective and adoptable in real world testing should be candidates for mandatory certification and utilization, including the Da Vinci standards.”

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), which represents more than 60,000 medical practice administrators, executives, and leaders, supports the idea that electronic prior authorization “has the potential to decrease administrative burden through automation but only if implemented properly.”

In its comments, the MGMA called for broader reform of prior authorization. One way to accomplish that goal is by aligning electronic prior authorization standards “with payment and quality reporting programs, as well as care delivery models, to minimize burden and overhead costs.”

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

Before working to create standards for electronic prior authorization, the entire process itself needs some work.

That was the message from groups representing physicians, medical practices, and hospitals in response to a request for input from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). In January, ONC requested public feedback on how making the process for insurer approvals digital can “ease the burden of prior authorization tasks on patients, providers, and payers.”

According to a study conducted by America’s Health Insurance Plans, 71% of providers who implemented electronic prior authorization experienced “faster time to patient care.” The organization, which represents many of the nation’s health insurers, also reported that electronic prior authorization reduced the time it took to receive a decision by a health plan by 69%.

In its response to ONC, the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) called out prior authorization as a “leading cause of physician burden” and wrote that the organization is “strongly supportive of efforts to reform and streamline the prior authorization process.”

AAFP, which represents 127,600 family physicians, residents, and students, cited in its comments an AMA survey in which 88% of physicians said that prior authorization “generates high or extremely high administrative burden” for their practices. Practices are responsible for an average of 41 prior authorizations per physician each week, which can take almost 2 days of a physician’s time each week, according to the AAFP.

Delayed care, increased confusion, reduced treatment adherence, and even discontinuation of treatment are some of the harms prior authorization causes patients, wrote AAFP board chair Ada D. Stewart, MD.

Electronic prior authorization is “just one step in addressing the flaws of utilization management practices, and comprehensive reform is needed to reduce the volume of prior authorizations and ensure patients’ timely access to care,” wrote Dr. Stewart.
 

AHA: Most common prior auth means are phones, fax

The American Hospital Association (AHA) highlighted the variety of prior authorization requests from different payers, writing, “While some plans accept electronic means, the most common method remains using fax machines and contacting call centers, with regular hold times of 20 to 30 minutes.”

The AHA’s Senior Vice President Ashley Thompson wrote that the various prior authorization processes required by payers take up staff time and increase the chance of data entry errors.

To fix this, the AHA calls for an “end-to-end automated prior authorization process that integrates with clinicians’ EHR workflow.” According to the AHA, this approach can help physicians have access to the required prior authorization information during treatment planning.

In response to the federal agency’s question about the functional capabilities for certified health IT modules to facilitate electronic prior authorization, the AAFP wrote that the standards should include communicating to providers the expected timeline from a payer on a response, the ability to access payers’ reasoning for denials, and the creation of a process for appealing decisions.

The ONC also asked for input on the use of three fast health care interoperability resources (FHIR)–based Da Vinci implementation guides in electronic prior authorization.

Developed by the Da Vinci Project in coordination with the HL7 Clinical Decision Support Workgroup, the FHIR-based implementation guides create a mechanism for reducing the burden on provider organizations and simplifying processes by establishing electronic versions of administrative and clinical requirements that are a part of providers’ workflow.

In its response, the AHA requested that prior authorization solutions “be fully developed and tested prior to wide scale industry rollout.”

The AAFP largely agreed with the AHA in its response, writing, “Only standards and [implementation guides] that have been proven effective and adoptable in real world testing should be candidates for mandatory certification and utilization, including the Da Vinci standards.”

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), which represents more than 60,000 medical practice administrators, executives, and leaders, supports the idea that electronic prior authorization “has the potential to decrease administrative burden through automation but only if implemented properly.”

In its comments, the MGMA called for broader reform of prior authorization. One way to accomplish that goal is by aligning electronic prior authorization standards “with payment and quality reporting programs, as well as care delivery models, to minimize burden and overhead costs.”

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

Earlier this month one of our dogs needed surgery. Early one morning I dropped her off at the veterinarian’s office.

About 10 minutes after leaving, they called and asked me to come back and get her. The vet had called in sick, so all her surgeries for the day had to be rescheduled.

It’s a pain in the rear, but what can you do? It happens to the best of us. My staff has had their share of times where they had to frantically call and reschedule patients when I was too sick to work.

So I drove back and waited in line. Most people were understanding, but some less so. The lady in front of me was demanding her dog’s surgery (which hadn’t happened yet) be free due to her being inconvenienced. A staff member at another desk was dealing with an angry man who was demanding the veterinarian’s home phone number.

When I got up to the front I picked up my dog and rescheduled the surgery for 2 weeks later. The young lady at the desk handed me a reminder card and said “Thank you for not yelling at me.”

How sad is that? Is this what our society has come to, where people feel obliged to thank you for not being an ass?

Common courtesy should be the rule rather than the exception, right? What’s wrong with politeness?

Yeah, going back to have to get my dog and reschedule her surgery is an inconvenience, but that’s about it. Certainly not something to get worked up over, or to scream at another person who’s just doing their job. Getting sick is part of life. It’s happened to me, it’s happened to you, and on this day it happened to our veterinarian.

Our supposedly polite society seems to have gone in reverse during the pandemic, though the change had probably started before then. Although we all went through it together, for some it’s removed the thin veneer of civilization, leaving them angry, bitter, and hostile over things that are beyond the control of mortals.

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? It takes less effort to be nice than nasty, and it’s definitely better for your blood pressure.

I really don’t understand this. What’s to be gained by going through the world angry at things you can’t control? Especially when they’re so minor, like having to reschedule a veterinarian’s appointment.

It just ain’t worth it to be like that. For you, or the innocent person you’re abusing.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Earlier this month one of our dogs needed surgery. Early one morning I dropped her off at the veterinarian’s office.

About 10 minutes after leaving, they called and asked me to come back and get her. The vet had called in sick, so all her surgeries for the day had to be rescheduled.

It’s a pain in the rear, but what can you do? It happens to the best of us. My staff has had their share of times where they had to frantically call and reschedule patients when I was too sick to work.

So I drove back and waited in line. Most people were understanding, but some less so. The lady in front of me was demanding her dog’s surgery (which hadn’t happened yet) be free due to her being inconvenienced. A staff member at another desk was dealing with an angry man who was demanding the veterinarian’s home phone number.

When I got up to the front I picked up my dog and rescheduled the surgery for 2 weeks later. The young lady at the desk handed me a reminder card and said “Thank you for not yelling at me.”

How sad is that? Is this what our society has come to, where people feel obliged to thank you for not being an ass?

Common courtesy should be the rule rather than the exception, right? What’s wrong with politeness?

Yeah, going back to have to get my dog and reschedule her surgery is an inconvenience, but that’s about it. Certainly not something to get worked up over, or to scream at another person who’s just doing their job. Getting sick is part of life. It’s happened to me, it’s happened to you, and on this day it happened to our veterinarian.

Our supposedly polite society seems to have gone in reverse during the pandemic, though the change had probably started before then. Although we all went through it together, for some it’s removed the thin veneer of civilization, leaving them angry, bitter, and hostile over things that are beyond the control of mortals.

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? It takes less effort to be nice than nasty, and it’s definitely better for your blood pressure.

I really don’t understand this. What’s to be gained by going through the world angry at things you can’t control? Especially when they’re so minor, like having to reschedule a veterinarian’s appointment.

It just ain’t worth it to be like that. For you, or the innocent person you’re abusing.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Earlier this month one of our dogs needed surgery. Early one morning I dropped her off at the veterinarian’s office.

About 10 minutes after leaving, they called and asked me to come back and get her. The vet had called in sick, so all her surgeries for the day had to be rescheduled.

It’s a pain in the rear, but what can you do? It happens to the best of us. My staff has had their share of times where they had to frantically call and reschedule patients when I was too sick to work.

So I drove back and waited in line. Most people were understanding, but some less so. The lady in front of me was demanding her dog’s surgery (which hadn’t happened yet) be free due to her being inconvenienced. A staff member at another desk was dealing with an angry man who was demanding the veterinarian’s home phone number.

When I got up to the front I picked up my dog and rescheduled the surgery for 2 weeks later. The young lady at the desk handed me a reminder card and said “Thank you for not yelling at me.”

How sad is that? Is this what our society has come to, where people feel obliged to thank you for not being an ass?

Common courtesy should be the rule rather than the exception, right? What’s wrong with politeness?

Yeah, going back to have to get my dog and reschedule her surgery is an inconvenience, but that’s about it. Certainly not something to get worked up over, or to scream at another person who’s just doing their job. Getting sick is part of life. It’s happened to me, it’s happened to you, and on this day it happened to our veterinarian.

Our supposedly polite society seems to have gone in reverse during the pandemic, though the change had probably started before then. Although we all went through it together, for some it’s removed the thin veneer of civilization, leaving them angry, bitter, and hostile over things that are beyond the control of mortals.

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? It takes less effort to be nice than nasty, and it’s definitely better for your blood pressure.

I really don’t understand this. What’s to be gained by going through the world angry at things you can’t control? Especially when they’re so minor, like having to reschedule a veterinarian’s appointment.

It just ain’t worth it to be like that. For you, or the innocent person you’re abusing.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Children prenatally exposed to opioids alone have an increased risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but interactions between opioids and both cannabis use and alcohol use were linked to varying levels of ADHD risk as well, according to findings published March 11 in JAMA Network Open.

While many prenatal exposure studies examine associations with one substance, the results of this case-control study “suggest that it is important to consider prenatal exposure to multiple substances and the interactions between these substances when counseling women regarding substance use during pregnancy,” wrote Henri M. Garrison-Desany of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

Using data from children in the prospective Boston Birth Cohort between 1998 and 2019, the researchers did a secondary analysis on the 3,138 children (50.4% of whom were male) with at least 2 years of follow-up, excluding children from multiple-gestation pregnancies, in vitro fertilization pregnancies, and deliveries involving major maternal trauma or major chromosomal anomalies. Mothers answered a questionnaire within 24-72 hours of delivery regarding their demographics, substance use, pregnancy history, and health status. Among the mothers, 58.6% were Black, 22.3% were Hispanic, 7.2% were White, 1.5% were Asian, and 10.4% were other races/ethnicities.

The children’s electronic medical records were used to identify those with ADHD diagnoses. The researchers did not assess prescription opioid exposure during pregnancy, but they based opioid exposure on mothers’ reports of recreationally using heroin or oxycodone, mothers’ reports of receiving methadone treatment, or a newborn diagnosis of neonatal abstinence syndrome or neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

Just under a quarter of the women (24.2%) reported using at least one substance during pregnancy. After tobacco smoking (18.5%), the next most reported substances were alcohol (8.1%), cannabis (3.9%), and opioids (1.9%). With a median 12 years of follow-up, 15.5% of the children had been diagnosed with ADHD, most of whom (71.6%) were male.

Before considering interaction of different substances, children exposed to opioids had a little over twice the risk of ADHD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.19) compared to those with no prenatal substance exposure. Although neither cannabis nor alcohol was independently associated with ADHD, smoking had a 40% increased risk, and researchers found a 21% increase in risk of ADHD with each additional substance mothers used during pregnancy. The researchers had adjusted these findings for maternal age, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational level, annual household income, parity, number of perinatal visits, and general stress during pregnancy, based on a structured interview.

When the researchers considered all the substances together, opioid exposure increased risk of ADHD by 60% (HR, 1.6), opioids with cannabis increased risk by 42%, opioids with alcohol increased risk by 15%, and opioids with smoking increased risk by 17%.

”Our findings suggest opioids may interact with other substances (including cannabis), which may be particularly deleterious,” the researchers reported. “It is not clear whether this interaction is owing to biological or environmental factors, such as whether individuals with illicit polysubstance use are more likely to use more substances or whether they have other characteristics that may impact child development.”

The authors noted that cannabis exposure has been linked to other neurodevelopmental outcomes, including reduced executive and motor function in infants. ”Notably, although we did not find a significant independent association between cannabis exposure and ADHD, children exposed to both cannabis and opioids had a 23% greater risk than expected from either exposure individually,” they reported.

The researchers suggest that their findings provide data for considering harm reduction approaches that reduce use of any single substance during pregnancy. “Focusing on the most obviously harmful exposures may be a useful way to reduce the risk of ADHD,” they wrote. “Further work is needed to directly investigate this hypothesis and examine whether reduction in the use of any substance among those with polysubstance use could be acceptable compared with abstinence.”

In an invited commentary, Angela Lupattelli, PhD, and Nhung T. H. Trinh, PhD, both of the department of pharmacy at the University of Oslo, noted the methodological challenges of assessing exposures and associations from multiple different substances during pregnancy.

“First, how can we disentangle the consequences of individual and/or combined substance exposures during pregnancy from the underlying risks?” they asked. In addition to differences in baseline characteristic between those who use opioids or cannabis, Dr. Lupattelli and Dr. Trinh noted that other important unmeasured factors, such as genetics and family environment, may confound the effect size estimates for ADHD.

They also noted the need to consider intensity, dose, duration, and timing of substance use during pregnancy.

“Understanding the longer-term safety of substance use during pregnancy is paramount to inform prevention policy and shape counseling strategies. Observational studies, despite their limitations, are a necessary piece of the puzzle,” they wrote. “However, the study findings should be interpreted with caution, as the use of advanced analytical methods cannot overcome the unavailability of some important confounding factors and exposure information.”

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no industry-related disclosures.

Children prenatally exposed to opioids alone have an increased risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but interactions between opioids and both cannabis use and alcohol use were linked to varying levels of ADHD risk as well, according to findings published March 11 in JAMA Network Open.

While many prenatal exposure studies examine associations with one substance, the results of this case-control study “suggest that it is important to consider prenatal exposure to multiple substances and the interactions between these substances when counseling women regarding substance use during pregnancy,” wrote Henri M. Garrison-Desany of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

Using data from children in the prospective Boston Birth Cohort between 1998 and 2019, the researchers did a secondary analysis on the 3,138 children (50.4% of whom were male) with at least 2 years of follow-up, excluding children from multiple-gestation pregnancies, in vitro fertilization pregnancies, and deliveries involving major maternal trauma or major chromosomal anomalies. Mothers answered a questionnaire within 24-72 hours of delivery regarding their demographics, substance use, pregnancy history, and health status. Among the mothers, 58.6% were Black, 22.3% were Hispanic, 7.2% were White, 1.5% were Asian, and 10.4% were other races/ethnicities.

The children’s electronic medical records were used to identify those with ADHD diagnoses. The researchers did not assess prescription opioid exposure during pregnancy, but they based opioid exposure on mothers’ reports of recreationally using heroin or oxycodone, mothers’ reports of receiving methadone treatment, or a newborn diagnosis of neonatal abstinence syndrome or neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

Just under a quarter of the women (24.2%) reported using at least one substance during pregnancy. After tobacco smoking (18.5%), the next most reported substances were alcohol (8.1%), cannabis (3.9%), and opioids (1.9%). With a median 12 years of follow-up, 15.5% of the children had been diagnosed with ADHD, most of whom (71.6%) were male.

Before considering interaction of different substances, children exposed to opioids had a little over twice the risk of ADHD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.19) compared to those with no prenatal substance exposure. Although neither cannabis nor alcohol was independently associated with ADHD, smoking had a 40% increased risk, and researchers found a 21% increase in risk of ADHD with each additional substance mothers used during pregnancy. The researchers had adjusted these findings for maternal age, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational level, annual household income, parity, number of perinatal visits, and general stress during pregnancy, based on a structured interview.

When the researchers considered all the substances together, opioid exposure increased risk of ADHD by 60% (HR, 1.6), opioids with cannabis increased risk by 42%, opioids with alcohol increased risk by 15%, and opioids with smoking increased risk by 17%.

”Our findings suggest opioids may interact with other substances (including cannabis), which may be particularly deleterious,” the researchers reported. “It is not clear whether this interaction is owing to biological or environmental factors, such as whether individuals with illicit polysubstance use are more likely to use more substances or whether they have other characteristics that may impact child development.”

The authors noted that cannabis exposure has been linked to other neurodevelopmental outcomes, including reduced executive and motor function in infants. ”Notably, although we did not find a significant independent association between cannabis exposure and ADHD, children exposed to both cannabis and opioids had a 23% greater risk than expected from either exposure individually,” they reported.

The researchers suggest that their findings provide data for considering harm reduction approaches that reduce use of any single substance during pregnancy. “Focusing on the most obviously harmful exposures may be a useful way to reduce the risk of ADHD,” they wrote. “Further work is needed to directly investigate this hypothesis and examine whether reduction in the use of any substance among those with polysubstance use could be acceptable compared with abstinence.”

In an invited commentary, Angela Lupattelli, PhD, and Nhung T. H. Trinh, PhD, both of the department of pharmacy at the University of Oslo, noted the methodological challenges of assessing exposures and associations from multiple different substances during pregnancy.

“First, how can we disentangle the consequences of individual and/or combined substance exposures during pregnancy from the underlying risks?” they asked. In addition to differences in baseline characteristic between those who use opioids or cannabis, Dr. Lupattelli and Dr. Trinh noted that other important unmeasured factors, such as genetics and family environment, may confound the effect size estimates for ADHD.

They also noted the need to consider intensity, dose, duration, and timing of substance use during pregnancy.

“Understanding the longer-term safety of substance use during pregnancy is paramount to inform prevention policy and shape counseling strategies. Observational studies, despite their limitations, are a necessary piece of the puzzle,” they wrote. “However, the study findings should be interpreted with caution, as the use of advanced analytical methods cannot overcome the unavailability of some important confounding factors and exposure information.”

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no industry-related disclosures.

Children prenatally exposed to opioids alone have an increased risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but interactions between opioids and both cannabis use and alcohol use were linked to varying levels of ADHD risk as well, according to findings published March 11 in JAMA Network Open.

While many prenatal exposure studies examine associations with one substance, the results of this case-control study “suggest that it is important to consider prenatal exposure to multiple substances and the interactions between these substances when counseling women regarding substance use during pregnancy,” wrote Henri M. Garrison-Desany of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

Using data from children in the prospective Boston Birth Cohort between 1998 and 2019, the researchers did a secondary analysis on the 3,138 children (50.4% of whom were male) with at least 2 years of follow-up, excluding children from multiple-gestation pregnancies, in vitro fertilization pregnancies, and deliveries involving major maternal trauma or major chromosomal anomalies. Mothers answered a questionnaire within 24-72 hours of delivery regarding their demographics, substance use, pregnancy history, and health status. Among the mothers, 58.6% were Black, 22.3% were Hispanic, 7.2% were White, 1.5% were Asian, and 10.4% were other races/ethnicities.

The children’s electronic medical records were used to identify those with ADHD diagnoses. The researchers did not assess prescription opioid exposure during pregnancy, but they based opioid exposure on mothers’ reports of recreationally using heroin or oxycodone, mothers’ reports of receiving methadone treatment, or a newborn diagnosis of neonatal abstinence syndrome or neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

Just under a quarter of the women (24.2%) reported using at least one substance during pregnancy. After tobacco smoking (18.5%), the next most reported substances were alcohol (8.1%), cannabis (3.9%), and opioids (1.9%). With a median 12 years of follow-up, 15.5% of the children had been diagnosed with ADHD, most of whom (71.6%) were male.

Before considering interaction of different substances, children exposed to opioids had a little over twice the risk of ADHD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.19) compared to those with no prenatal substance exposure. Although neither cannabis nor alcohol was independently associated with ADHD, smoking had a 40% increased risk, and researchers found a 21% increase in risk of ADHD with each additional substance mothers used during pregnancy. The researchers had adjusted these findings for maternal age, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational level, annual household income, parity, number of perinatal visits, and general stress during pregnancy, based on a structured interview.

When the researchers considered all the substances together, opioid exposure increased risk of ADHD by 60% (HR, 1.6), opioids with cannabis increased risk by 42%, opioids with alcohol increased risk by 15%, and opioids with smoking increased risk by 17%.

”Our findings suggest opioids may interact with other substances (including cannabis), which may be particularly deleterious,” the researchers reported. “It is not clear whether this interaction is owing to biological or environmental factors, such as whether individuals with illicit polysubstance use are more likely to use more substances or whether they have other characteristics that may impact child development.”

The authors noted that cannabis exposure has been linked to other neurodevelopmental outcomes, including reduced executive and motor function in infants. ”Notably, although we did not find a significant independent association between cannabis exposure and ADHD, children exposed to both cannabis and opioids had a 23% greater risk than expected from either exposure individually,” they reported.

The researchers suggest that their findings provide data for considering harm reduction approaches that reduce use of any single substance during pregnancy. “Focusing on the most obviously harmful exposures may be a useful way to reduce the risk of ADHD,” they wrote. “Further work is needed to directly investigate this hypothesis and examine whether reduction in the use of any substance among those with polysubstance use could be acceptable compared with abstinence.”

In an invited commentary, Angela Lupattelli, PhD, and Nhung T. H. Trinh, PhD, both of the department of pharmacy at the University of Oslo, noted the methodological challenges of assessing exposures and associations from multiple different substances during pregnancy.

“First, how can we disentangle the consequences of individual and/or combined substance exposures during pregnancy from the underlying risks?” they asked. In addition to differences in baseline characteristic between those who use opioids or cannabis, Dr. Lupattelli and Dr. Trinh noted that other important unmeasured factors, such as genetics and family environment, may confound the effect size estimates for ADHD.

They also noted the need to consider intensity, dose, duration, and timing of substance use during pregnancy.

“Understanding the longer-term safety of substance use during pregnancy is paramount to inform prevention policy and shape counseling strategies. Observational studies, despite their limitations, are a necessary piece of the puzzle,” they wrote. “However, the study findings should be interpreted with caution, as the use of advanced analytical methods cannot overcome the unavailability of some important confounding factors and exposure information.”

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no industry-related disclosures.

Neuromodulation is an up-and-coming subtype of treatments for migraine. These treatments vary significantly from transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)–like devices to transcranial magnetic stimulation to remote electrical stimulation of nociceptors in the arm or the vagus nerve. Some of these devices are primarily preventive in nature, whereas others are primarily for the acute treatment of migraine. Transcranial direct-current stimulation (TDCS) has recently been investigated in a number of other neurologic conditions, including multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically for its ability to reverse manifestations of specific pathologic changes. With migraine, the question remains of whether central sensitization can similarly be reversed.

Prior studies looking at TDCS in the context of episodic migraine were mostly inconclusive. These were looking primarily at acute treatment rather than prevention. In a recent study, Hodai and colleagues took a small group of patients with treatment-refractory chronic migraine and randomly assigned them to TDCS or sham stimulation over a course of 2 months. The stimulations that the patients received were similar to protocols that have been investigated in multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically anodal TDCS, which is thought to reverse gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic and glutamatergic dysregulations when the right or left cortex was stimulated.

The primary outcome of this study was decrease in baseline migraine attack frequency per month; secondary endpoints were improvement in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores, the Short-Form Survey (SF-12) quality of life assessment, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) assessment, and a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale.

A total of 36 patients were randomly assigned to a sham or TDCS intervention. A larger reduction of migraine days per month was seen by the intervention group. The interventions were also well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. None of the secondary outcomes, however, showed significance. Further analysis of responder rates showed a 50% responder rate of 36% in the intervention group vs. 14% in the sham group.

This is the first sham-controlled study investigating the use of this neuromodulation therapy for the prevention of migraine. TDCS appears to show promise even when selected for some of the most refractory situations. The question will become how this can be more practical for patient use in the future.

Prognosticating treatment effects in chronic migraine is extremely difficult to do. Most specialists have an extensive discussion with their patients that includes the likelihood of improvement in addition to the risks and benefits of the medications they are considering starting. There has been background discussion in the headache community over whether improvement with one calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medication is predictive of benefit with other medications in the class or with long-term improvement in migraine. Buse and colleagues present findings from a post hoc analysis of the PROMISE-2 study of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine.

Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered CGRP monoclonal antibody, given at either 100 mg or 300 mg every 3 months. PROMISE-2 was a randomized controlled trial that led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine. The authors here reviewed the data between the two intervention groups and the placebo group and then regrouped these patients according to response at month 1, defined by whether the patient was in a response group of 25%, 50%, or 75% response after 1 month of treatment. This was then compared with the patient global impact of change (PGIC) score at month 6.

This post hoc analysis did not include patients that had no response at all to either intervention or placebo at month 6. A total of 1072 patients were included in this analysis; the 100-mg, 300-mg, and placebo groups had approximately one third of patients in each.

The majority of patients in the 75% responder group continued to improve; more than half of those patients maintained the 75% response rate at month 6. More than two thirds of the 50% responders remained at a 50% response at 6 months as well. Those who responded at < 25% at month 1 were much less likely to achieve 50% response at month 6; however, the patients in the active groups were more likely to achieve a response compared with those in the placebo group.

The PGIC scores also showed significant improvement when comparing among the groups. Those who were "very much improved" at month 1 were significantly more likely to remain that way at the conclusion of the study.

Although prognosticating among different subtypes of CGRP antagonists is not yet possible, the authors here do show the ability to better inform and educate our patients when considering eptinezumab therapy for chronic migraine.

There is an age-old debate among headache specialists about overused medications: to wean or not to wean. The overuse of acute medications has long been shown to contribute to a higher frequency of migraine attacks over time, initially being called "transformed migraine" and subsequently being understood either as a subtype of chronic migraine or a separate headache disorder completely. Medication overuse headache (MOH) is something screened for by all headache providers when evaluating patients for worsening headaches. The addition of a preventive medication is the mainstay of treatment of any instance of higher frequency migraine; when MOH is a contributing factor, many practitioners will recommend complete discontinuation of the overused medications, whereas others will recommend waiting for the preventive medication to offer benefit first. As yet, there have not been any head-to-head trials investigating discontinuation vs. non-discontinuation of overused medications in this population.

Schwedt and colleagues designed a multisite trial prospectively enrolling patients with an International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) diagnosis of both chronic migraine and MOH. Participants were told not to change their preventive medications for 4 weeks prior to enrollment. A total of 720 participants were enrolled through 14 clinics. Any patients already on preventive therapy were optimized to the best dose of that therapy or switched to other medications on the basis of the clinical investigator's judgement; all participants were randomly assigned to either discontinuation of the overused medication and given a novel acute therapy or were told to remain on their current acute therapy. No bridging therapies were recommended when switching or discontinuing acute therapies.

Of the 720 participants enrolled, 42% were already on preventive medicine. The overused medications ranged from simple analgesics for 64% of the study population to triptans, combination analgesics, and even opiates in 4% of the population. Butalbital use was included in the combination analgesic group. The primary outcome was reduction in moderate to severe migraine days, and secondary outcomes were scores for disability, depression, and quality of life (based on questionnaires).

There appeared to be no significant difference between the discontinuation and non-discontinuation groups. The authors describe this as noninferiority between the groups. To answer the age-old question of to wean or not to wean — there probably is not an answer that fits every patient. Patient adherence determines the effectiveness of anything we recommend. When evaluating patients with MOH, we have to consider whether discontinuing a medication that the patient has been depending on for months or longer will make it more or less likely for them to adhere to the other recommendations that we are making. Some patients will be very agreeable to try another acute option and stop overusing altogether. Others will be very apprehensive, and a slower, steadier approach that includes using the overused medication may be necessary. We aim always to individualize our recommendations for patients, and this should be no different.

Neuromodulation is an up-and-coming subtype of treatments for migraine. These treatments vary significantly from transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)–like devices to transcranial magnetic stimulation to remote electrical stimulation of nociceptors in the arm or the vagus nerve. Some of these devices are primarily preventive in nature, whereas others are primarily for the acute treatment of migraine. Transcranial direct-current stimulation (TDCS) has recently been investigated in a number of other neurologic conditions, including multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically for its ability to reverse manifestations of specific pathologic changes. With migraine, the question remains of whether central sensitization can similarly be reversed.

Prior studies looking at TDCS in the context of episodic migraine were mostly inconclusive. These were looking primarily at acute treatment rather than prevention. In a recent study, Hodai and colleagues took a small group of patients with treatment-refractory chronic migraine and randomly assigned them to TDCS or sham stimulation over a course of 2 months. The stimulations that the patients received were similar to protocols that have been investigated in multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically anodal TDCS, which is thought to reverse gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic and glutamatergic dysregulations when the right or left cortex was stimulated.

The primary outcome of this study was decrease in baseline migraine attack frequency per month; secondary endpoints were improvement in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores, the Short-Form Survey (SF-12) quality of life assessment, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) assessment, and a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale.

A total of 36 patients were randomly assigned to a sham or TDCS intervention. A larger reduction of migraine days per month was seen by the intervention group. The interventions were also well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. None of the secondary outcomes, however, showed significance. Further analysis of responder rates showed a 50% responder rate of 36% in the intervention group vs. 14% in the sham group.

This is the first sham-controlled study investigating the use of this neuromodulation therapy for the prevention of migraine. TDCS appears to show promise even when selected for some of the most refractory situations. The question will become how this can be more practical for patient use in the future.

Prognosticating treatment effects in chronic migraine is extremely difficult to do. Most specialists have an extensive discussion with their patients that includes the likelihood of improvement in addition to the risks and benefits of the medications they are considering starting. There has been background discussion in the headache community over whether improvement with one calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medication is predictive of benefit with other medications in the class or with long-term improvement in migraine. Buse and colleagues present findings from a post hoc analysis of the PROMISE-2 study of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine.

Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered CGRP monoclonal antibody, given at either 100 mg or 300 mg every 3 months. PROMISE-2 was a randomized controlled trial that led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine. The authors here reviewed the data between the two intervention groups and the placebo group and then regrouped these patients according to response at month 1, defined by whether the patient was in a response group of 25%, 50%, or 75% response after 1 month of treatment. This was then compared with the patient global impact of change (PGIC) score at month 6.

This post hoc analysis did not include patients that had no response at all to either intervention or placebo at month 6. A total of 1072 patients were included in this analysis; the 100-mg, 300-mg, and placebo groups had approximately one third of patients in each.

The majority of patients in the 75% responder group continued to improve; more than half of those patients maintained the 75% response rate at month 6. More than two thirds of the 50% responders remained at a 50% response at 6 months as well. Those who responded at < 25% at month 1 were much less likely to achieve 50% response at month 6; however, the patients in the active groups were more likely to achieve a response compared with those in the placebo group.

The PGIC scores also showed significant improvement when comparing among the groups. Those who were "very much improved" at month 1 were significantly more likely to remain that way at the conclusion of the study.

Although prognosticating among different subtypes of CGRP antagonists is not yet possible, the authors here do show the ability to better inform and educate our patients when considering eptinezumab therapy for chronic migraine.

There is an age-old debate among headache specialists about overused medications: to wean or not to wean. The overuse of acute medications has long been shown to contribute to a higher frequency of migraine attacks over time, initially being called "transformed migraine" and subsequently being understood either as a subtype of chronic migraine or a separate headache disorder completely. Medication overuse headache (MOH) is something screened for by all headache providers when evaluating patients for worsening headaches. The addition of a preventive medication is the mainstay of treatment of any instance of higher frequency migraine; when MOH is a contributing factor, many practitioners will recommend complete discontinuation of the overused medications, whereas others will recommend waiting for the preventive medication to offer benefit first. As yet, there have not been any head-to-head trials investigating discontinuation vs. non-discontinuation of overused medications in this population.

Schwedt and colleagues designed a multisite trial prospectively enrolling patients with an International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) diagnosis of both chronic migraine and MOH. Participants were told not to change their preventive medications for 4 weeks prior to enrollment. A total of 720 participants were enrolled through 14 clinics. Any patients already on preventive therapy were optimized to the best dose of that therapy or switched to other medications on the basis of the clinical investigator's judgement; all participants were randomly assigned to either discontinuation of the overused medication and given a novel acute therapy or were told to remain on their current acute therapy. No bridging therapies were recommended when switching or discontinuing acute therapies.

Of the 720 participants enrolled, 42% were already on preventive medicine. The overused medications ranged from simple analgesics for 64% of the study population to triptans, combination analgesics, and even opiates in 4% of the population. Butalbital use was included in the combination analgesic group. The primary outcome was reduction in moderate to severe migraine days, and secondary outcomes were scores for disability, depression, and quality of life (based on questionnaires).

There appeared to be no significant difference between the discontinuation and non-discontinuation groups. The authors describe this as noninferiority between the groups. To answer the age-old question of to wean or not to wean — there probably is not an answer that fits every patient. Patient adherence determines the effectiveness of anything we recommend. When evaluating patients with MOH, we have to consider whether discontinuing a medication that the patient has been depending on for months or longer will make it more or less likely for them to adhere to the other recommendations that we are making. Some patients will be very agreeable to try another acute option and stop overusing altogether. Others will be very apprehensive, and a slower, steadier approach that includes using the overused medication may be necessary. We aim always to individualize our recommendations for patients, and this should be no different.

Neuromodulation is an up-and-coming subtype of treatments for migraine. These treatments vary significantly from transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)–like devices to transcranial magnetic stimulation to remote electrical stimulation of nociceptors in the arm or the vagus nerve. Some of these devices are primarily preventive in nature, whereas others are primarily for the acute treatment of migraine. Transcranial direct-current stimulation (TDCS) has recently been investigated in a number of other neurologic conditions, including multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically for its ability to reverse manifestations of specific pathologic changes. With migraine, the question remains of whether central sensitization can similarly be reversed.

Prior studies looking at TDCS in the context of episodic migraine were mostly inconclusive. These were looking primarily at acute treatment rather than prevention. In a recent study, Hodai and colleagues took a small group of patients with treatment-refractory chronic migraine and randomly assigned them to TDCS or sham stimulation over a course of 2 months. The stimulations that the patients received were similar to protocols that have been investigated in multiple sclerosis and stroke, specifically anodal TDCS, which is thought to reverse gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic and glutamatergic dysregulations when the right or left cortex was stimulated.

The primary outcome of this study was decrease in baseline migraine attack frequency per month; secondary endpoints were improvement in the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores, the Short-Form Survey (SF-12) quality of life assessment, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) assessment, and a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale.

A total of 36 patients were randomly assigned to a sham or TDCS intervention. A larger reduction of migraine days per month was seen by the intervention group. The interventions were also well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. None of the secondary outcomes, however, showed significance. Further analysis of responder rates showed a 50% responder rate of 36% in the intervention group vs. 14% in the sham group.

This is the first sham-controlled study investigating the use of this neuromodulation therapy for the prevention of migraine. TDCS appears to show promise even when selected for some of the most refractory situations. The question will become how this can be more practical for patient use in the future.

Prognosticating treatment effects in chronic migraine is extremely difficult to do. Most specialists have an extensive discussion with their patients that includes the likelihood of improvement in addition to the risks and benefits of the medications they are considering starting. There has been background discussion in the headache community over whether improvement with one calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medication is predictive of benefit with other medications in the class or with long-term improvement in migraine. Buse and colleagues present findings from a post hoc analysis of the PROMISE-2 study of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine.

Eptinezumab is an intravenously administered CGRP monoclonal antibody, given at either 100 mg or 300 mg every 3 months. PROMISE-2 was a randomized controlled trial that led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of eptinezumab for the prevention of chronic migraine. The authors here reviewed the data between the two intervention groups and the placebo group and then regrouped these patients according to response at month 1, defined by whether the patient was in a response group of 25%, 50%, or 75% response after 1 month of treatment. This was then compared with the patient global impact of change (PGIC) score at month 6.

This post hoc analysis did not include patients that had no response at all to either intervention or placebo at month 6. A total of 1072 patients were included in this analysis; the 100-mg, 300-mg, and placebo groups had approximately one third of patients in each.

The majority of patients in the 75% responder group continued to improve; more than half of those patients maintained the 75% response rate at month 6. More than two thirds of the 50% responders remained at a 50% response at 6 months as well. Those who responded at < 25% at month 1 were much less likely to achieve 50% response at month 6; however, the patients in the active groups were more likely to achieve a response compared with those in the placebo group.

The PGIC scores also showed significant improvement when comparing among the groups. Those who were "very much improved" at month 1 were significantly more likely to remain that way at the conclusion of the study.

Although prognosticating among different subtypes of CGRP antagonists is not yet possible, the authors here do show the ability to better inform and educate our patients when considering eptinezumab therapy for chronic migraine.

There is an age-old debate among headache specialists about overused medications: to wean or not to wean. The overuse of acute medications has long been shown to contribute to a higher frequency of migraine attacks over time, initially being called "transformed migraine" and subsequently being understood either as a subtype of chronic migraine or a separate headache disorder completely. Medication overuse headache (MOH) is something screened for by all headache providers when evaluating patients for worsening headaches. The addition of a preventive medication is the mainstay of treatment of any instance of higher frequency migraine; when MOH is a contributing factor, many practitioners will recommend complete discontinuation of the overused medications, whereas others will recommend waiting for the preventive medication to offer benefit first. As yet, there have not been any head-to-head trials investigating discontinuation vs. non-discontinuation of overused medications in this population.

Schwedt and colleagues designed a multisite trial prospectively enrolling patients with an International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) diagnosis of both chronic migraine and MOH. Participants were told not to change their preventive medications for 4 weeks prior to enrollment. A total of 720 participants were enrolled through 14 clinics. Any patients already on preventive therapy were optimized to the best dose of that therapy or switched to other medications on the basis of the clinical investigator's judgement; all participants were randomly assigned to either discontinuation of the overused medication and given a novel acute therapy or were told to remain on their current acute therapy. No bridging therapies were recommended when switching or discontinuing acute therapies.

Of the 720 participants enrolled, 42% were already on preventive medicine. The overused medications ranged from simple analgesics for 64% of the study population to triptans, combination analgesics, and even opiates in 4% of the population. Butalbital use was included in the combination analgesic group. The primary outcome was reduction in moderate to severe migraine days, and secondary outcomes were scores for disability, depression, and quality of life (based on questionnaires).

There appeared to be no significant difference between the discontinuation and non-discontinuation groups. The authors describe this as noninferiority between the groups. To answer the age-old question of to wean or not to wean — there probably is not an answer that fits every patient. Patient adherence determines the effectiveness of anything we recommend. When evaluating patients with MOH, we have to consider whether discontinuing a medication that the patient has been depending on for months or longer will make it more or less likely for them to adhere to the other recommendations that we are making. Some patients will be very agreeable to try another acute option and stop overusing altogether. Others will be very apprehensive, and a slower, steadier approach that includes using the overused medication may be necessary. We aim always to individualize our recommendations for patients, and this should be no different.

Treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was the focus of clinical research papers published this month. Despite the advances made in treating PsA with targeted therapies, in most parts of the world, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the first line of treatment. Methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) are commonly used, but there are limited data on the effectiveness of combination therapy. To address this issue, Mulder and colleagues enrolled 78 patients with active PsA who have two or more swollen joints and randomly allocated them to either 25 mg oral MTX weekly after 4 weeks of 15 mg weekly plus 20 mg LEF daily (n = 39) or MTX plus placebo (monotherapy; n = 39). At week 16, PsA disease activity score was improved significantly in the MTX + LEF vs. MTX monotherapy group (3.1 vs. 3.7; P = .025). Incidence of mild adverse events, such as nausea/vomiting (44% vs. 28%) and altered bowel habits (26% vs. 8%), was higher with MTX + LEF vs. MTX + placebo. So although less well tolerated, MTX + LEF therapy was superior to MTX monotherapy at improving disease activity in patients with PsA.

Biologics targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL) -12/23, -23, and -17A are efficacious for the management of PsA, but questions remain about comparative effectiveness. Gossec and colleagues reported the results from their prospective observational PsABio study that evaluated real-world treatment persistence and effectiveness at 1 year after initiation of first-line to third-line IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab or a TNF inhibitor (TNFi). Their study followed 893 patients. After 1 year of treatment, ustekinumab and the TNFi showed similar persistence (hazard ratio [HR] for stopping/switching treatment 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.13) and a similar proportion of patients achieving (on the Disease Activity Index for PsA) clinical low disease activity (odds ratio [OR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.57-1.10) and remission (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.49-1.07), along with similar safety profiles. Thus in real-world studies, TNFi and ustekinumab seem to have similar effectiveness and safety.

Drug persistence between patients with psoriasis alone vs. those with PsA is also of interest. In a real-life study including 62 patients with psoriasis and 90 patients with PsA who initiated treatment with secukinumab and were followed up for 24 months or until discontinuation, Ortolan and colleagues demonstrated that the retention rate of secukinumab was higher in psoriasis vs. PsA at 12 (85% vs. 68%) and 24 (61% vs. 57%) months, with the risk for secukinumab discontinuation being higher among patients with PsA in the overall cohort (HR 2.43; P = .035) and in patients with obesity in the PsA cohort (P = .021). Thus, the presence of PsA and obesity lower the secukinumab retention rate.

1. Despite the advent of many targeted therapies for PsA, there remain many unmet needs. Deucravacitinib is a novel oral selective inhibitor of tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) acting via binding to the TYK2 regulatory domain. In a phase 2 study including 203 patients with active PsA that was intolerant to at least one therapy who were randomly assigned to receive 6 mg deucravacitinib once daily, 12 mg deucravacitinib once daily, or placebo for 16 weeks, Mease and colleagues demonstrated that at week 16, American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response was significantly higher with 6 mg once-daily deucravacitinib (52.9%, adjusted OR [aOR] 2.4; P = .0134) and 12 mg (62.7%, aOR 3.6; P = .0004) vs. placebo (31.8%), with 12 mg deucravacitinib improving ACR20 response as early as at 8 weeks (P < .05). No serious adverse events were reported. Thus, TYK2 inhibition shows promise in the treatment of PsA and the results from phase 3 trials are awaited.

Treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was the focus of clinical research papers published this month. Despite the advances made in treating PsA with targeted therapies, in most parts of the world, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the first line of treatment. Methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) are commonly used, but there are limited data on the effectiveness of combination therapy. To address this issue, Mulder and colleagues enrolled 78 patients with active PsA who have two or more swollen joints and randomly allocated them to either 25 mg oral MTX weekly after 4 weeks of 15 mg weekly plus 20 mg LEF daily (n = 39) or MTX plus placebo (monotherapy; n = 39). At week 16, PsA disease activity score was improved significantly in the MTX + LEF vs. MTX monotherapy group (3.1 vs. 3.7; P = .025). Incidence of mild adverse events, such as nausea/vomiting (44% vs. 28%) and altered bowel habits (26% vs. 8%), was higher with MTX + LEF vs. MTX + placebo. So although less well tolerated, MTX + LEF therapy was superior to MTX monotherapy at improving disease activity in patients with PsA.

Biologics targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL) -12/23, -23, and -17A are efficacious for the management of PsA, but questions remain about comparative effectiveness. Gossec and colleagues reported the results from their prospective observational PsABio study that evaluated real-world treatment persistence and effectiveness at 1 year after initiation of first-line to third-line IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab or a TNF inhibitor (TNFi). Their study followed 893 patients. After 1 year of treatment, ustekinumab and the TNFi showed similar persistence (hazard ratio [HR] for stopping/switching treatment 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.13) and a similar proportion of patients achieving (on the Disease Activity Index for PsA) clinical low disease activity (odds ratio [OR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.57-1.10) and remission (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.49-1.07), along with similar safety profiles. Thus in real-world studies, TNFi and ustekinumab seem to have similar effectiveness and safety.

Drug persistence between patients with psoriasis alone vs. those with PsA is also of interest. In a real-life study including 62 patients with psoriasis and 90 patients with PsA who initiated treatment with secukinumab and were followed up for 24 months or until discontinuation, Ortolan and colleagues demonstrated that the retention rate of secukinumab was higher in psoriasis vs. PsA at 12 (85% vs. 68%) and 24 (61% vs. 57%) months, with the risk for secukinumab discontinuation being higher among patients with PsA in the overall cohort (HR 2.43; P = .035) and in patients with obesity in the PsA cohort (P = .021). Thus, the presence of PsA and obesity lower the secukinumab retention rate.

1. Despite the advent of many targeted therapies for PsA, there remain many unmet needs. Deucravacitinib is a novel oral selective inhibitor of tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) acting via binding to the TYK2 regulatory domain. In a phase 2 study including 203 patients with active PsA that was intolerant to at least one therapy who were randomly assigned to receive 6 mg deucravacitinib once daily, 12 mg deucravacitinib once daily, or placebo for 16 weeks, Mease and colleagues demonstrated that at week 16, American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response was significantly higher with 6 mg once-daily deucravacitinib (52.9%, adjusted OR [aOR] 2.4; P = .0134) and 12 mg (62.7%, aOR 3.6; P = .0004) vs. placebo (31.8%), with 12 mg deucravacitinib improving ACR20 response as early as at 8 weeks (P < .05). No serious adverse events were reported. Thus, TYK2 inhibition shows promise in the treatment of PsA and the results from phase 3 trials are awaited.

Treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was the focus of clinical research papers published this month. Despite the advances made in treating PsA with targeted therapies, in most parts of the world, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the first line of treatment. Methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) are commonly used, but there are limited data on the effectiveness of combination therapy. To address this issue, Mulder and colleagues enrolled 78 patients with active PsA who have two or more swollen joints and randomly allocated them to either 25 mg oral MTX weekly after 4 weeks of 15 mg weekly plus 20 mg LEF daily (n = 39) or MTX plus placebo (monotherapy; n = 39). At week 16, PsA disease activity score was improved significantly in the MTX + LEF vs. MTX monotherapy group (3.1 vs. 3.7; P = .025). Incidence of mild adverse events, such as nausea/vomiting (44% vs. 28%) and altered bowel habits (26% vs. 8%), was higher with MTX + LEF vs. MTX + placebo. So although less well tolerated, MTX + LEF therapy was superior to MTX monotherapy at improving disease activity in patients with PsA.

Biologics targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL) -12/23, -23, and -17A are efficacious for the management of PsA, but questions remain about comparative effectiveness. Gossec and colleagues reported the results from their prospective observational PsABio study that evaluated real-world treatment persistence and effectiveness at 1 year after initiation of first-line to third-line IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab or a TNF inhibitor (TNFi). Their study followed 893 patients. After 1 year of treatment, ustekinumab and the TNFi showed similar persistence (hazard ratio [HR] for stopping/switching treatment 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.13) and a similar proportion of patients achieving (on the Disease Activity Index for PsA) clinical low disease activity (odds ratio [OR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.57-1.10) and remission (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.49-1.07), along with similar safety profiles. Thus in real-world studies, TNFi and ustekinumab seem to have similar effectiveness and safety.

Drug persistence between patients with psoriasis alone vs. those with PsA is also of interest. In a real-life study including 62 patients with psoriasis and 90 patients with PsA who initiated treatment with secukinumab and were followed up for 24 months or until discontinuation, Ortolan and colleagues demonstrated that the retention rate of secukinumab was higher in psoriasis vs. PsA at 12 (85% vs. 68%) and 24 (61% vs. 57%) months, with the risk for secukinumab discontinuation being higher among patients with PsA in the overall cohort (HR 2.43; P = .035) and in patients with obesity in the PsA cohort (P = .021). Thus, the presence of PsA and obesity lower the secukinumab retention rate.

1. Despite the advent of many targeted therapies for PsA, there remain many unmet needs. Deucravacitinib is a novel oral selective inhibitor of tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) acting via binding to the TYK2 regulatory domain. In a phase 2 study including 203 patients with active PsA that was intolerant to at least one therapy who were randomly assigned to receive 6 mg deucravacitinib once daily, 12 mg deucravacitinib once daily, or placebo for 16 weeks, Mease and colleagues demonstrated that at week 16, American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response was significantly higher with 6 mg once-daily deucravacitinib (52.9%, adjusted OR [aOR] 2.4; P = .0134) and 12 mg (62.7%, aOR 3.6; P = .0004) vs. placebo (31.8%), with 12 mg deucravacitinib improving ACR20 response as early as at 8 weeks (P < .05). No serious adverse events were reported. Thus, TYK2 inhibition shows promise in the treatment of PsA and the results from phase 3 trials are awaited.

Risk for anaphylaxis with intravenous (IV) iron supplementation is rare; however, the risk can vary depending on the formulation used, a new study finds.

The results of the new retrospective cohort study were published online March 29 in Annals of Internal Medicine (doi: 10.7326/M21-4009).

“The rates of anaphylaxis were very low with all IV iron products but were three- to eightfold greater for iron dextran and ferumoxytol than for iron sucrose,” wrote Chintan V. Dave, PharmD, PhD, of Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and colleagues.

Using data from Medicare insurance claims, the researchers evaluated the incidence of anaphylaxis among patients 65 years or older receiving their first dose of one of five different IV iron formulations for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia. Patients were treated between July 2013 and December 2018 and the iron formulations were ferric carboxymaltose, ferumoxytol, ferric gluconate, iron dextran, or iron sucrose.

Overall, 167,925 patients were included and categorized based on the iron supplement they received. Dr. Dave and colleagues found that the adjusted incidence rates (IRs) for anaphylaxis per 10,000 first administrations were 9.8 cases for iron dextran (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2 to 15.3 cases), 4.0 cases for ferumoxytol (95% CI, 2.5 to 6.6 cases), 1.5 cases for ferric gluconate (95% CI, 0.3 to 6.6 cases), 1.2 cases for iron sucrose (95% CI, 0.6 to 2.5 cases), and 0.8 cases for ferric carboxymaltose (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.6 cases).

Only those patients receiving iron dextran or ferumoxytol had anaphylactic reactions requiring hospitalization.

Using iron sucrose as the referent category, the researchers found that the odds ratios (ORs) for anaphylaxis were 8.3 for iron dextran (95% CI, 3.5-19.8) and 3.4 for ferumoxytol (95% CI, 1.4-8.3).

“Anaphylaxis is just one of many factors one should consider when deciding on the choice of IV iron therapy,” Dr. Dave noted in an interview, when asked whether he feels that these findings will change the use of parenteral iron in practice.

Acknowledging that anaphylaxis is a severe but rare complication, Dr. Dave stated that other factors such as “clinical indication, setting, dose, the number and duration of administrations required to replenish iron reserves, risk of other adverse reactions, and costs,” should also be considered when designing treatment plans using intravenous iron.

In the study, anaphylaxis was defined as reactions that occurred within 24 hours of IV iron administration and was restricted to the following:

• Anaphylaxis resulting in hospitalization.
• An outpatient or emergency department visit due to anaphylactic shock accompanied by codes relating to the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation or epinephrine or the occurrence of hypotension.
• Two separate encounters for anaphylactic shock within the same day representing different encounter types, that is, inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department visit.

Dr. Dave and colleagues acknowledged study limitations, such as the fact the anaphylaxis criteria included only the most severe cases and could therefore have missed milder cases of anaphylaxis secondary to IV iron. Further, they noted that these findings may not be applicable to a younger patient population.

Patients were excluded from the study if they had received IV iron between January 2007 and July 2013, had a diagnosis of HIV or end-stage renal disease, had a recent blood transfusion, or had a history of anaphylactic reactions.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Risk for anaphylaxis with intravenous (IV) iron supplementation is rare; however, the risk can vary depending on the formulation used, a new study finds.

The results of the new retrospective cohort study were published online March 29 in Annals of Internal Medicine (doi: 10.7326/M21-4009).

“The rates of anaphylaxis were very low with all IV iron products but were three- to eightfold greater for iron dextran and ferumoxytol than for iron sucrose,” wrote Chintan V. Dave, PharmD, PhD, of Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and colleagues.

Using data from Medicare insurance claims, the researchers evaluated the incidence of anaphylaxis among patients 65 years or older receiving their first dose of one of five different IV iron formulations for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia. Patients were treated between July 2013 and December 2018 and the iron formulations were ferric carboxymaltose, ferumoxytol, ferric gluconate, iron dextran, or iron sucrose.

Overall, 167,925 patients were included and categorized based on the iron supplement they received. Dr. Dave and colleagues found that the adjusted incidence rates (IRs) for anaphylaxis per 10,000 first administrations were 9.8 cases for iron dextran (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2 to 15.3 cases), 4.0 cases for ferumoxytol (95% CI, 2.5 to 6.6 cases), 1.5 cases for ferric gluconate (95% CI, 0.3 to 6.6 cases), 1.2 cases for iron sucrose (95% CI, 0.6 to 2.5 cases), and 0.8 cases for ferric carboxymaltose (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.6 cases).

Only those patients receiving iron dextran or ferumoxytol had anaphylactic reactions requiring hospitalization.

Using iron sucrose as the referent category, the researchers found that the odds ratios (ORs) for anaphylaxis were 8.3 for iron dextran (95% CI, 3.5-19.8) and 3.4 for ferumoxytol (95% CI, 1.4-8.3).

“Anaphylaxis is just one of many factors one should consider when deciding on the choice of IV iron therapy,” Dr. Dave noted in an interview, when asked whether he feels that these findings will change the use of parenteral iron in practice.

Acknowledging that anaphylaxis is a severe but rare complication, Dr. Dave stated that other factors such as “clinical indication, setting, dose, the number and duration of administrations required to replenish iron reserves, risk of other adverse reactions, and costs,” should also be considered when designing treatment plans using intravenous iron.

In the study, anaphylaxis was defined as reactions that occurred within 24 hours of IV iron administration and was restricted to the following:

• Anaphylaxis resulting in hospitalization.
• An outpatient or emergency department visit due to anaphylactic shock accompanied by codes relating to the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation or epinephrine or the occurrence of hypotension.
• Two separate encounters for anaphylactic shock within the same day representing different encounter types, that is, inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department visit.

Dr. Dave and colleagues acknowledged study limitations, such as the fact the anaphylaxis criteria included only the most severe cases and could therefore have missed milder cases of anaphylaxis secondary to IV iron. Further, they noted that these findings may not be applicable to a younger patient population.

Patients were excluded from the study if they had received IV iron between January 2007 and July 2013, had a diagnosis of HIV or end-stage renal disease, had a recent blood transfusion, or had a history of anaphylactic reactions.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Risk for anaphylaxis with intravenous (IV) iron supplementation is rare; however, the risk can vary depending on the formulation used, a new study finds.

The results of the new retrospective cohort study were published online March 29 in Annals of Internal Medicine (doi: 10.7326/M21-4009).

“The rates of anaphylaxis were very low with all IV iron products but were three- to eightfold greater for iron dextran and ferumoxytol than for iron sucrose,” wrote Chintan V. Dave, PharmD, PhD, of Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and colleagues.

Using data from Medicare insurance claims, the researchers evaluated the incidence of anaphylaxis among patients 65 years or older receiving their first dose of one of five different IV iron formulations for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia. Patients were treated between July 2013 and December 2018 and the iron formulations were ferric carboxymaltose, ferumoxytol, ferric gluconate, iron dextran, or iron sucrose.

Overall, 167,925 patients were included and categorized based on the iron supplement they received. Dr. Dave and colleagues found that the adjusted incidence rates (IRs) for anaphylaxis per 10,000 first administrations were 9.8 cases for iron dextran (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2 to 15.3 cases), 4.0 cases for ferumoxytol (95% CI, 2.5 to 6.6 cases), 1.5 cases for ferric gluconate (95% CI, 0.3 to 6.6 cases), 1.2 cases for iron sucrose (95% CI, 0.6 to 2.5 cases), and 0.8 cases for ferric carboxymaltose (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.6 cases).

Only those patients receiving iron dextran or ferumoxytol had anaphylactic reactions requiring hospitalization.

Using iron sucrose as the referent category, the researchers found that the odds ratios (ORs) for anaphylaxis were 8.3 for iron dextran (95% CI, 3.5-19.8) and 3.4 for ferumoxytol (95% CI, 1.4-8.3).

“Anaphylaxis is just one of many factors one should consider when deciding on the choice of IV iron therapy,” Dr. Dave noted in an interview, when asked whether he feels that these findings will change the use of parenteral iron in practice.

Acknowledging that anaphylaxis is a severe but rare complication, Dr. Dave stated that other factors such as “clinical indication, setting, dose, the number and duration of administrations required to replenish iron reserves, risk of other adverse reactions, and costs,” should also be considered when designing treatment plans using intravenous iron.

In the study, anaphylaxis was defined as reactions that occurred within 24 hours of IV iron administration and was restricted to the following:

• Anaphylaxis resulting in hospitalization.
• An outpatient or emergency department visit due to anaphylactic shock accompanied by codes relating to the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation or epinephrine or the occurrence of hypotension.
• Two separate encounters for anaphylactic shock within the same day representing different encounter types, that is, inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department visit.

Dr. Dave and colleagues acknowledged study limitations, such as the fact the anaphylaxis criteria included only the most severe cases and could therefore have missed milder cases of anaphylaxis secondary to IV iron. Further, they noted that these findings may not be applicable to a younger patient population.

Patients were excluded from the study if they had received IV iron between January 2007 and July 2013, had a diagnosis of HIV or end-stage renal disease, had a recent blood transfusion, or had a history of anaphylactic reactions.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

BOSTON – The main feature of retronychia, a nail disorder of the toes, is the growth of new nail under prior nail growth. But this layering of nails is not always readily apparent on clinical examination, commonly leading to the wrong therapy and no resolution to the problem, according to an expert update at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Misinterpretation of the yellow discoloration, a common feature of retronychia, means “many patients are maintained on antifungal therapy for years and years with no change in their condition,” reported Phoebe Rich, MD, director of the Nail Disorders Clinic, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Infection is not commonly involved in retronychia, but importantly, antifungals and antibiotics “have no role in treating the underlying disorder,” Dr. Rich said.

The term retronychia and its description is only about 20 years old, according to Dr. Rich, who cited work by David A. de Berker, MBBS, PhD, a consultant dermatologist at University Hospitals in Bristol, England. His publication on this disorder appeared in 1999, with a more detailed description published about 10 years later.

Recently, the body of literature on this disorder has been growing, contributing to an increasing consensus about etiology, diagnosis, and treatments to consider in the context of causes and severity, Dr. Rich said.

Some but not all patients have abnormal formation of the nail bed, increasing susceptibility to retronychia, but trauma or microtrauma typically serve as a trigger in most cases. Dancing, high heels, steel-toed shoes, and other sources of trauma to the toes are implicated.

Whether or not patients have an inherent susceptibility, injury separates the existing nail from the matrix and nail bed so that newly forming nail begins to grow under the nail rather continuing to push out the old nail.

Susceptibility is increased substantially in individuals with a shortened nail bed, according to Dr. Rich. In severe cases, when there is simply inadequate nail bed for the nail growth to attach, recurrence is common or even inevitable. Even when the nail is removed and regrowth appears normal at the end of a year, those patients with very short nail beds cannot count on a cure.

“Due to the slow growth of nails, it might take 2 or 3 years for the problem to recur,” Dr. Rich cautioned. For this reason, cure rates reported for the various interventions at 1 year might not predict longer-term benefit.

Retronychia is usually a clinical diagnosis based on the presence of the increased bulk of the toenail when overlapping nails cannot be seen. This is not necessarily a single overgrowth. In some cases, multiple layers of nails are stacked one on top of the other. Xanthonychia (yellow nail) is usually present.

“The layering might not be visible without removing the nail,” said Dr. Rich, explaining one reason that the diagnosis is sometimes missed. Ultrasound is a noninvasive means to confirm the problem, although Rich warned that imaging is not necessarily reimbursed.

“There is no diagnosis by histopathology, so it cannot be confirmed with biopsy,” Dr. Rich said.

Treatments range from conservative strategies, particularly topical or intralesional steroids in mild cases, to more invasive procedures such as clipping of the nail plate or surgical avulsion. All can be effective when used appropriately, according to Dr. Rich.

“The more invasive procedures are the more effective, but the caveat is they are also associated with more complications,” said Dr. Rich, citing, for example, the risk of nail dystrophies. Because of the increasing number of studies, the relative benefits and risks of retronychia treatment have now been summarized in a recent review. Dr. Rich suggested the review is one of the most recent and detailed evaluations of the topic that “I encourage everyone to read.”

Despite progress in describing retronychia, Dr. Rich said that there might be more to learn about risk. In particular, she cited the work of Dana W. Stern, MD, a specialist in nail disorders who is in private practice in New York. Dr. Stern is pursuing a hypothesis that at least some cases are caused by potentially targetable biomechanical issues.

“I have observed that many of the younger patients in my practice with retronychia seem to have atypical foot anatomy,” Dr. Stern said in an interview. “I am collecting cases and hoping to explore this issue in more depth.”

She said that foot anatomy in relationship to retronychia has not been adequately evaluated.

“In my review of the literature, I could not find a single study that showed imagery of the feet,” she said. She is considering a collaboration with others, including Rich, to explore this as a factor in retronychia.

Asked about risk of misdiagnosis, Dr. Stern reiterated some of the points made by Dr. Rich. In particular, she agreed that discolored nails alone should not be a reason to initiate antimycotic therapy without considering the possibility of retronychia.

“So many providers are not familiar with the diagnosis, and only 50% of yellow thickened nails are in fact onychomycosis,” she said. “We end up seeing a plethora of patients [with retronychia] who are unfortunately misdiagnosed for years.”

Dr. Rich reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Stern reported a financial relationship with Rare Beauty Brands. Neither Dr. Rich nor Dr. Stern said they had any disclosures related to this topic.

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

BOSTON – The main feature of retronychia, a nail disorder of the toes, is the growth of new nail under prior nail growth. But this layering of nails is not always readily apparent on clinical examination, commonly leading to the wrong therapy and no resolution to the problem, according to an expert update at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Misinterpretation of the yellow discoloration, a common feature of retronychia, means “many patients are maintained on antifungal therapy for years and years with no change in their condition,” reported Phoebe Rich, MD, director of the Nail Disorders Clinic, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Infection is not commonly involved in retronychia, but importantly, antifungals and antibiotics “have no role in treating the underlying disorder,” Dr. Rich said.

The term retronychia and its description is only about 20 years old, according to Dr. Rich, who cited work by David A. de Berker, MBBS, PhD, a consultant dermatologist at University Hospitals in Bristol, England. His publication on this disorder appeared in 1999, with a more detailed description published about 10 years later.

Recently, the body of literature on this disorder has been growing, contributing to an increasing consensus about etiology, diagnosis, and treatments to consider in the context of causes and severity, Dr. Rich said.

Some but not all patients have abnormal formation of the nail bed, increasing susceptibility to retronychia, but trauma or microtrauma typically serve as a trigger in most cases. Dancing, high heels, steel-toed shoes, and other sources of trauma to the toes are implicated.

Whether or not patients have an inherent susceptibility, injury separates the existing nail from the matrix and nail bed so that newly forming nail begins to grow under the nail rather continuing to push out the old nail.

Susceptibility is increased substantially in individuals with a shortened nail bed, according to Dr. Rich. In severe cases, when there is simply inadequate nail bed for the nail growth to attach, recurrence is common or even inevitable. Even when the nail is removed and regrowth appears normal at the end of a year, those patients with very short nail beds cannot count on a cure.

“Due to the slow growth of nails, it might take 2 or 3 years for the problem to recur,” Dr. Rich cautioned. For this reason, cure rates reported for the various interventions at 1 year might not predict longer-term benefit.

Retronychia is usually a clinical diagnosis based on the presence of the increased bulk of the toenail when overlapping nails cannot be seen. This is not necessarily a single overgrowth. In some cases, multiple layers of nails are stacked one on top of the other. Xanthonychia (yellow nail) is usually present.

“The layering might not be visible without removing the nail,” said Dr. Rich, explaining one reason that the diagnosis is sometimes missed. Ultrasound is a noninvasive means to confirm the problem, although Rich warned that imaging is not necessarily reimbursed.

“There is no diagnosis by histopathology, so it cannot be confirmed with biopsy,” Dr. Rich said.

Treatments range from conservative strategies, particularly topical or intralesional steroids in mild cases, to more invasive procedures such as clipping of the nail plate or surgical avulsion. All can be effective when used appropriately, according to Dr. Rich.

“The more invasive procedures are the more effective, but the caveat is they are also associated with more complications,” said Dr. Rich, citing, for example, the risk of nail dystrophies. Because of the increasing number of studies, the relative benefits and risks of retronychia treatment have now been summarized in a recent review. Dr. Rich suggested the review is one of the most recent and detailed evaluations of the topic that “I encourage everyone to read.”

Despite progress in describing retronychia, Dr. Rich said that there might be more to learn about risk. In particular, she cited the work of Dana W. Stern, MD, a specialist in nail disorders who is in private practice in New York. Dr. Stern is pursuing a hypothesis that at least some cases are caused by potentially targetable biomechanical issues.

“I have observed that many of the younger patients in my practice with retronychia seem to have atypical foot anatomy,” Dr. Stern said in an interview. “I am collecting cases and hoping to explore this issue in more depth.”

She said that foot anatomy in relationship to retronychia has not been adequately evaluated.

“In my review of the literature, I could not find a single study that showed imagery of the feet,” she said. She is considering a collaboration with others, including Rich, to explore this as a factor in retronychia.

Asked about risk of misdiagnosis, Dr. Stern reiterated some of the points made by Dr. Rich. In particular, she agreed that discolored nails alone should not be a reason to initiate antimycotic therapy without considering the possibility of retronychia.

“So many providers are not familiar with the diagnosis, and only 50% of yellow thickened nails are in fact onychomycosis,” she said. “We end up seeing a plethora of patients [with retronychia] who are unfortunately misdiagnosed for years.”

Dr. Rich reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Stern reported a financial relationship with Rare Beauty Brands. Neither Dr. Rich nor Dr. Stern said they had any disclosures related to this topic.

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

BOSTON – The main feature of retronychia, a nail disorder of the toes, is the growth of new nail under prior nail growth. But this layering of nails is not always readily apparent on clinical examination, commonly leading to the wrong therapy and no resolution to the problem, according to an expert update at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Misinterpretation of the yellow discoloration, a common feature of retronychia, means “many patients are maintained on antifungal therapy for years and years with no change in their condition,” reported Phoebe Rich, MD, director of the Nail Disorders Clinic, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Infection is not commonly involved in retronychia, but importantly, antifungals and antibiotics “have no role in treating the underlying disorder,” Dr. Rich said.

The term retronychia and its description is only about 20 years old, according to Dr. Rich, who cited work by David A. de Berker, MBBS, PhD, a consultant dermatologist at University Hospitals in Bristol, England. His publication on this disorder appeared in 1999, with a more detailed description published about 10 years later.

Recently, the body of literature on this disorder has been growing, contributing to an increasing consensus about etiology, diagnosis, and treatments to consider in the context of causes and severity, Dr. Rich said.

Some but not all patients have abnormal formation of the nail bed, increasing susceptibility to retronychia, but trauma or microtrauma typically serve as a trigger in most cases. Dancing, high heels, steel-toed shoes, and other sources of trauma to the toes are implicated.

Whether or not patients have an inherent susceptibility, injury separates the existing nail from the matrix and nail bed so that newly forming nail begins to grow under the nail rather continuing to push out the old nail.

Susceptibility is increased substantially in individuals with a shortened nail bed, according to Dr. Rich. In severe cases, when there is simply inadequate nail bed for the nail growth to attach, recurrence is common or even inevitable. Even when the nail is removed and regrowth appears normal at the end of a year, those patients with very short nail beds cannot count on a cure.

“Due to the slow growth of nails, it might take 2 or 3 years for the problem to recur,” Dr. Rich cautioned. For this reason, cure rates reported for the various interventions at 1 year might not predict longer-term benefit.

Retronychia is usually a clinical diagnosis based on the presence of the increased bulk of the toenail when overlapping nails cannot be seen. This is not necessarily a single overgrowth. In some cases, multiple layers of nails are stacked one on top of the other. Xanthonychia (yellow nail) is usually present.

“The layering might not be visible without removing the nail,” said Dr. Rich, explaining one reason that the diagnosis is sometimes missed. Ultrasound is a noninvasive means to confirm the problem, although Rich warned that imaging is not necessarily reimbursed.

“There is no diagnosis by histopathology, so it cannot be confirmed with biopsy,” Dr. Rich said.

Treatments range from conservative strategies, particularly topical or intralesional steroids in mild cases, to more invasive procedures such as clipping of the nail plate or surgical avulsion. All can be effective when used appropriately, according to Dr. Rich.

“The more invasive procedures are the more effective, but the caveat is they are also associated with more complications,” said Dr. Rich, citing, for example, the risk of nail dystrophies. Because of the increasing number of studies, the relative benefits and risks of retronychia treatment have now been summarized in a recent review. Dr. Rich suggested the review is one of the most recent and detailed evaluations of the topic that “I encourage everyone to read.”

Despite progress in describing retronychia, Dr. Rich said that there might be more to learn about risk. In particular, she cited the work of Dana W. Stern, MD, a specialist in nail disorders who is in private practice in New York. Dr. Stern is pursuing a hypothesis that at least some cases are caused by potentially targetable biomechanical issues.

“I have observed that many of the younger patients in my practice with retronychia seem to have atypical foot anatomy,” Dr. Stern said in an interview. “I am collecting cases and hoping to explore this issue in more depth.”

She said that foot anatomy in relationship to retronychia has not been adequately evaluated.

“In my review of the literature, I could not find a single study that showed imagery of the feet,” she said. She is considering a collaboration with others, including Rich, to explore this as a factor in retronychia.

Asked about risk of misdiagnosis, Dr. Stern reiterated some of the points made by Dr. Rich. In particular, she agreed that discolored nails alone should not be a reason to initiate antimycotic therapy without considering the possibility of retronychia.

“So many providers are not familiar with the diagnosis, and only 50% of yellow thickened nails are in fact onychomycosis,” she said. “We end up seeing a plethora of patients [with retronychia] who are unfortunately misdiagnosed for years.”

Dr. Rich reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Stern reported a financial relationship with Rare Beauty Brands. Neither Dr. Rich nor Dr. Stern said they had any disclosures related to this topic.

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

BOSTON – After several promising early phase studies, an injectable hyaluronic gel has been associated with sustained improvements in the appearance of the jaw in patients with poor jawline definition, according to data from what study authors characterized as a “pivotal” randomized multicenter trial. The results were presented during a late-breaking research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The primary outcome, assessed at 6 months, was at least a 1-point improvement in a photonumeric scale used to grade jawline sagging, reported Jeremy Green, MD, Skin Associates of South Florida, Coral Gables.

When those randomized to the hyaluronic filler gel VYC-25L (Vycross, Juvéderm) were compared with untreated controls, 68.5% versus 38.4% met the criterion for benefit at 6 months. Importantly, the effect in treated patients was sustained when reevaluated at 12 months. Green reported that the response is generally sustained at the maximum follow-up, now out to 17 months.
 

Most enrolled patients are severely affected

In this study, 208 patients with severe (74%) or moderate loss of jawline definition were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive the filler or serve as controls. The initially untreated controls received the gel after the primary outcome analysis at 6 months.

The hyaluronic gel was injected at five sites along the jawline. The mean age of participants was 58 years. The majority were women, and most were White.

Dermatologists blinded to treatment compared photos at 6 months with those taken at baseline using the photonumeric grading system of 1-5. Change in patient satisfaction at 6 months and again at 12 months relative to baseline was also evaluated.

From baseline, when 28.9% of participants reported satisfaction on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), rates rose to 89.0% at month 6. There was a decline at month 12, but 79.9% remained satisfied after this period of follow-up.

Most patients experienced injection site reactions that were mainly mild to moderate and all resolved within several days of treatment. Pain with mastication was initially reported by 1.9%, but again this complaint was also mild and transient. All complaints had largely resolved by day 3.

The results are consistent with several previous clinical studies of VYC-25L for the same indication. In a similarly designed trial conducted in Europe that also used a 3:1 randomization scheme, the primary outcome assessed at 3 months was change in facial angle. Relative to controls, the angle improved by 2.51 degrees (P < .0001).

Patient satisfaction supports filler benefit

In the similar European trial, the clinical significance of the objective primary outcome also was supported by patient satisfaction assessed with several instruments, including the GAIS. Some degree of swelling or tenderness was experienced by almost all patients after injection, but none were serious, and all resolved.

In another trial, 202 patients with chin retrusion were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to VYC-25L or a control group. In that study, the primary outcome was at least a 1-point improvement in the Allergan Chin Retrusion Scale at 6 months. This advantage for treatment (56.3% vs. 27.5%) was again supported by several instruments for evaluating patient satisfaction, including GAIS.

As in the other studies, most patients had injection site reactions. Although all resolved within days of treatment, one patient left the study after experiencing cellulitis and injection-site inflammation.

Dissatisfaction with jawline definition is a relatively common complaint in Dr. Green’s experience, who said that there is a need for more effective and well-tolerated treatments. Given the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of VYC-25L in this controlled study, he suggested this product has potential utility.

In the field of cosmetic dermatology, there appears to be incremental progress in fillers with favorable clinical characteristics, according to Sandy U. Tsao, MD, a dermatologic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“We are seeing filler lasting longer and longer,” she said, commenting specifically about the results presented by Dr. Green. She called sustained aesthetic improvement at 12 months for the filler in this study “really exciting.”

Dr. Green has reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Tsao has reported financial relationships with Epiphany Dermatology, Lazarus AI, and UpToDate.

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

BOSTON – After several promising early phase studies, an injectable hyaluronic gel has been associated with sustained improvements in the appearance of the jaw in patients with poor jawline definition, according to data from what study authors characterized as a “pivotal” randomized multicenter trial. The results were presented during a late-breaking research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The primary outcome, assessed at 6 months, was at least a 1-point improvement in a photonumeric scale used to grade jawline sagging, reported Jeremy Green, MD, Skin Associates of South Florida, Coral Gables.

When those randomized to the hyaluronic filler gel VYC-25L (Vycross, Juvéderm) were compared with untreated controls, 68.5% versus 38.4% met the criterion for benefit at 6 months. Importantly, the effect in treated patients was sustained when reevaluated at 12 months. Green reported that the response is generally sustained at the maximum follow-up, now out to 17 months.
 

Most enrolled patients are severely affected

In this study, 208 patients with severe (74%) or moderate loss of jawline definition were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive the filler or serve as controls. The initially untreated controls received the gel after the primary outcome analysis at 6 months.

The hyaluronic gel was injected at five sites along the jawline. The mean age of participants was 58 years. The majority were women, and most were White.

Dermatologists blinded to treatment compared photos at 6 months with those taken at baseline using the photonumeric grading system of 1-5. Change in patient satisfaction at 6 months and again at 12 months relative to baseline was also evaluated.

From baseline, when 28.9% of participants reported satisfaction on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), rates rose to 89.0% at month 6. There was a decline at month 12, but 79.9% remained satisfied after this period of follow-up.

Most patients experienced injection site reactions that were mainly mild to moderate and all resolved within several days of treatment. Pain with mastication was initially reported by 1.9%, but again this complaint was also mild and transient. All complaints had largely resolved by day 3.

The results are consistent with several previous clinical studies of VYC-25L for the same indication. In a similarly designed trial conducted in Europe that also used a 3:1 randomization scheme, the primary outcome assessed at 3 months was change in facial angle. Relative to controls, the angle improved by 2.51 degrees (P < .0001).

Patient satisfaction supports filler benefit

In the similar European trial, the clinical significance of the objective primary outcome also was supported by patient satisfaction assessed with several instruments, including the GAIS. Some degree of swelling or tenderness was experienced by almost all patients after injection, but none were serious, and all resolved.

In another trial, 202 patients with chin retrusion were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to VYC-25L or a control group. In that study, the primary outcome was at least a 1-point improvement in the Allergan Chin Retrusion Scale at 6 months. This advantage for treatment (56.3% vs. 27.5%) was again supported by several instruments for evaluating patient satisfaction, including GAIS.

As in the other studies, most patients had injection site reactions. Although all resolved within days of treatment, one patient left the study after experiencing cellulitis and injection-site inflammation.

Dissatisfaction with jawline definition is a relatively common complaint in Dr. Green’s experience, who said that there is a need for more effective and well-tolerated treatments. Given the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of VYC-25L in this controlled study, he suggested this product has potential utility.

In the field of cosmetic dermatology, there appears to be incremental progress in fillers with favorable clinical characteristics, according to Sandy U. Tsao, MD, a dermatologic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“We are seeing filler lasting longer and longer,” she said, commenting specifically about the results presented by Dr. Green. She called sustained aesthetic improvement at 12 months for the filler in this study “really exciting.”

Dr. Green has reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Tsao has reported financial relationships with Epiphany Dermatology, Lazarus AI, and UpToDate.

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

BOSTON – After several promising early phase studies, an injectable hyaluronic gel has been associated with sustained improvements in the appearance of the jaw in patients with poor jawline definition, according to data from what study authors characterized as a “pivotal” randomized multicenter trial. The results were presented during a late-breaking research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The primary outcome, assessed at 6 months, was at least a 1-point improvement in a photonumeric scale used to grade jawline sagging, reported Jeremy Green, MD, Skin Associates of South Florida, Coral Gables.

When those randomized to the hyaluronic filler gel VYC-25L (Vycross, Juvéderm) were compared with untreated controls, 68.5% versus 38.4% met the criterion for benefit at 6 months. Importantly, the effect in treated patients was sustained when reevaluated at 12 months. Green reported that the response is generally sustained at the maximum follow-up, now out to 17 months.
 

Most enrolled patients are severely affected

In this study, 208 patients with severe (74%) or moderate loss of jawline definition were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive the filler or serve as controls. The initially untreated controls received the gel after the primary outcome analysis at 6 months.

The hyaluronic gel was injected at five sites along the jawline. The mean age of participants was 58 years. The majority were women, and most were White.

Dermatologists blinded to treatment compared photos at 6 months with those taken at baseline using the photonumeric grading system of 1-5. Change in patient satisfaction at 6 months and again at 12 months relative to baseline was also evaluated.

From baseline, when 28.9% of participants reported satisfaction on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), rates rose to 89.0% at month 6. There was a decline at month 12, but 79.9% remained satisfied after this period of follow-up.

Most patients experienced injection site reactions that were mainly mild to moderate and all resolved within several days of treatment. Pain with mastication was initially reported by 1.9%, but again this complaint was also mild and transient. All complaints had largely resolved by day 3.

The results are consistent with several previous clinical studies of VYC-25L for the same indication. In a similarly designed trial conducted in Europe that also used a 3:1 randomization scheme, the primary outcome assessed at 3 months was change in facial angle. Relative to controls, the angle improved by 2.51 degrees (P < .0001).

Patient satisfaction supports filler benefit

In the similar European trial, the clinical significance of the objective primary outcome also was supported by patient satisfaction assessed with several instruments, including the GAIS. Some degree of swelling or tenderness was experienced by almost all patients after injection, but none were serious, and all resolved.

In another trial, 202 patients with chin retrusion were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to VYC-25L or a control group. In that study, the primary outcome was at least a 1-point improvement in the Allergan Chin Retrusion Scale at 6 months. This advantage for treatment (56.3% vs. 27.5%) was again supported by several instruments for evaluating patient satisfaction, including GAIS.

As in the other studies, most patients had injection site reactions. Although all resolved within days of treatment, one patient left the study after experiencing cellulitis and injection-site inflammation.

Dissatisfaction with jawline definition is a relatively common complaint in Dr. Green’s experience, who said that there is a need for more effective and well-tolerated treatments. Given the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of VYC-25L in this controlled study, he suggested this product has potential utility.

In the field of cosmetic dermatology, there appears to be incremental progress in fillers with favorable clinical characteristics, according to Sandy U. Tsao, MD, a dermatologic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“We are seeing filler lasting longer and longer,” she said, commenting specifically about the results presented by Dr. Green. She called sustained aesthetic improvement at 12 months for the filler in this study “really exciting.”

Dr. Green has reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Tsao has reported financial relationships with Epiphany Dermatology, Lazarus AI, and UpToDate.

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