User login
Burnout rates in ICU staff fueled by shortages, overtime
Health care professionals working in critical care settings have been overburdened because of the plethora of COVID-19 cases, which has led to symptoms of burnout in both physicians and nurses, findings from a new study show.
“Overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout,” said lead study author Niek Kok, MSc, of IQ healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. “All ICU professionals are at the risk of this, and in our study, the incidence of physicians experiencing burnout was significantly higher than that of nurses in June 2020.”
This burnout can be explained by conditions caused by the pandemic, he noted, such as the scarcity of staff and resources and having to work with colleagues who were not qualified to work in critical care but who were there out of necessity.
Mr. Kok presented the findings of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
Burnout highest among critical care physicians
The ICU can be a stressful environment for both patients and health care personnel, and burnout is not uncommon among ICU clinicians. However, COVID-19 has amplified the degree of burnout being experienced by clinicians working in this setting. Critical care physicians now top the list of physicians experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, according to the Medscape report ‘Death by 1000 Thousand Cuts’: Physician Burnout and Suicide Report 2021.
The Medscape Nurse Career Satisfaction Report 2020, while not restricted to those working in critical care, also reported higher rates of burnout, compared with the prepandemic period. The percentage of nurses reporting being “very burned out” prior to the pandemic was 4%. Six months into the pandemic, that percentage soared to 18%.
In this study, Mr. Kok and colleagues examined the prevalence and incidence of burnout symptoms and moral distress in health care professionals working in the ICU, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“When the COVID-19 pandemic surfaced in the Netherlands, the health care professionals in our hospitals were motivated to do everything they could to provide the best care possible,” said Mr. Kok. “Many of the ICU professionals immediately realized that they would have to work longer hours.”
However, the health care professionals that he spoke with did have mixed feelings. Some were afraid of being infected with the virus, while others said that “it was very interesting times for them and that gave them extra motivation to do the work.
“Some physicians [and] the WHO warned that COVID-19 is not going to weathered by a heroic sprint – it is an arduous marathon that is going to go hand in hand with burnout symptoms,” Mr. Kok added. “It will eat away at our qualified ICU staff.”
Before and after data on burnout
It was widely believed that the COVID-19 pandemic would increase burnout symptoms, as had been demonstrated in studies of previous pandemics. However, Mr. Kok emphasized that there are no before and after measurements that transcend cross-sectional designs.
“The claim [has been] that it increases burnout – but there are no assessments of how it progresses in ICU professionals through time,” he said. “So what we really need is a comparison [of] before and after the pandemic.”
It is quite difficult to obtain this type of information because disruptive events like the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be predicted, he said. Thus, it is challenging to get a baseline measurement. But Mr. Kok pointed out that the study has both “before and after” measurements.
“By coincidence really, we had baseline data to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and had information that was collected before the pandemic,” he said.
In January 2020, a study began looking at the effects of ethics meetings on moral distress in ICU professionals. Data had been collected on moral distress and burnout on ICU professionals in December 2019. The first COVID-19 cases appeared in the Netherlands in February 2020.
A follow-up study was then conducted in May and June 2020, several months into the pandemic.
The longitudinal open cohort study included all ICU personnel who were working in five units within a single university medical center, plus another adult ICU that was based in a separate teaching hospital.
A total of 352 health care professionals responded to a baseline survey in October through December 2019, and then 233 responded to a follow-up survey sent in May and June 2020. The authors measured burnout symptoms and moral distress with the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Moral Distress Scale, respectively.
Findings
The overall prevalence of burnout symptoms was 23.0% prior to the pandemic, and that jumped to 36.1% at post-peak time. Higher rates of burnout were reported by nurses (38.0%) than physicians (28.6%).
However, the incidence rate of new burnout cases was higher among physicians, compared with nurses (26.7% vs 21.9%). Not surprisingly, a higher prevalence of burnout symptoms was observed in the post-peak period for all clinicians (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.53), and was higher for nurses (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.04), for those working overtime (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.48-3.02), and for personnel who directly engaged in patient care (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.35-2.60).
Physicians in general were much more likely to develop burnout symptoms related to the pandemic, compared with nurses (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.06-12.21).
When looking at findings on moral distress, Kok pointed out that it often arises in situations when the health care professional knows the right thing to do but is prevented from doing so. “Morally distressful situations all rose from December to June,” said Mr. Kok. “Scarcity was the most distressing. The other was where colleagues were perceived to be less skilled, and this had to do with the recruitment of people from outside of the ICU to provide care.”
Moral distress from scarcity and unskilled colleagues were both significantly related to burnout, he noted.
In the final model, working in a COVID-19 unit, stress from scarcity of resources and people, stress from unskilled colleagues, and stress from unsafe conditions were all related to burnout. “The stress of physicians was significantly higher,” said Kok. “Even though nurses had higher baseline burnout, it became less pronounced in June 2020. This indicates that burnout was significantly higher in physicians.”
Thus, Mr. Kok and colleagues concluded that overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout, and all ICU workers are at risk.
Burnout rates higher in physicians
Weighing in on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that the differences observed between physicians and nurses may have to do with the fact that “nurses have been smoldering all along and experiencing higher rates of burnout.
“They may have adapted better to the pandemic conditions, since they are more used to working overtime and short staffed, and spending far more time at the bedside,” he said. “Because of the volume of patients, physicians may be spending more hours doing patient care and are experiencing more burnout.”
For physicians, this may be a more significant change in the workload, as well as the complexity of the situation because of the pandemic. “Many things layer into it, such as [the fact] that there are no families present to give patients support, the complexity of care of these patients, and things like lack of PPE,” Dr. Martin said.
The study did not differentiate among physician groups, so it is unclear if the affected physicians were residents, fellows, or more senior staff. “Residents are often quite busy already, and don’t usually have the capacity to add more to their schedules, and maybe attendings were having to spend more time doing patient care,” Dr. Martin said. “In the United States, at least some personnel were restricted from working with COVID-19 patients. Medical students were removed in many places as well as nonessential staff, so that may have also added to their burnout.”
The study was conducted in the Netherlands, so there may be differences in the work environment, responsibilities of nurses vs. physicians, staffing, and so on. “But it still shows that burnout is very real among doctors and nurses working in the ICU in pandemic conditions,” he said.
Health care professionals working in critical care settings have been overburdened because of the plethora of COVID-19 cases, which has led to symptoms of burnout in both physicians and nurses, findings from a new study show.
“Overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout,” said lead study author Niek Kok, MSc, of IQ healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. “All ICU professionals are at the risk of this, and in our study, the incidence of physicians experiencing burnout was significantly higher than that of nurses in June 2020.”
This burnout can be explained by conditions caused by the pandemic, he noted, such as the scarcity of staff and resources and having to work with colleagues who were not qualified to work in critical care but who were there out of necessity.
Mr. Kok presented the findings of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
Burnout highest among critical care physicians
The ICU can be a stressful environment for both patients and health care personnel, and burnout is not uncommon among ICU clinicians. However, COVID-19 has amplified the degree of burnout being experienced by clinicians working in this setting. Critical care physicians now top the list of physicians experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, according to the Medscape report ‘Death by 1000 Thousand Cuts’: Physician Burnout and Suicide Report 2021.
The Medscape Nurse Career Satisfaction Report 2020, while not restricted to those working in critical care, also reported higher rates of burnout, compared with the prepandemic period. The percentage of nurses reporting being “very burned out” prior to the pandemic was 4%. Six months into the pandemic, that percentage soared to 18%.
In this study, Mr. Kok and colleagues examined the prevalence and incidence of burnout symptoms and moral distress in health care professionals working in the ICU, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“When the COVID-19 pandemic surfaced in the Netherlands, the health care professionals in our hospitals were motivated to do everything they could to provide the best care possible,” said Mr. Kok. “Many of the ICU professionals immediately realized that they would have to work longer hours.”
However, the health care professionals that he spoke with did have mixed feelings. Some were afraid of being infected with the virus, while others said that “it was very interesting times for them and that gave them extra motivation to do the work.
“Some physicians [and] the WHO warned that COVID-19 is not going to weathered by a heroic sprint – it is an arduous marathon that is going to go hand in hand with burnout symptoms,” Mr. Kok added. “It will eat away at our qualified ICU staff.”
Before and after data on burnout
It was widely believed that the COVID-19 pandemic would increase burnout symptoms, as had been demonstrated in studies of previous pandemics. However, Mr. Kok emphasized that there are no before and after measurements that transcend cross-sectional designs.
“The claim [has been] that it increases burnout – but there are no assessments of how it progresses in ICU professionals through time,” he said. “So what we really need is a comparison [of] before and after the pandemic.”
It is quite difficult to obtain this type of information because disruptive events like the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be predicted, he said. Thus, it is challenging to get a baseline measurement. But Mr. Kok pointed out that the study has both “before and after” measurements.
“By coincidence really, we had baseline data to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and had information that was collected before the pandemic,” he said.
In January 2020, a study began looking at the effects of ethics meetings on moral distress in ICU professionals. Data had been collected on moral distress and burnout on ICU professionals in December 2019. The first COVID-19 cases appeared in the Netherlands in February 2020.
A follow-up study was then conducted in May and June 2020, several months into the pandemic.
The longitudinal open cohort study included all ICU personnel who were working in five units within a single university medical center, plus another adult ICU that was based in a separate teaching hospital.
A total of 352 health care professionals responded to a baseline survey in October through December 2019, and then 233 responded to a follow-up survey sent in May and June 2020. The authors measured burnout symptoms and moral distress with the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Moral Distress Scale, respectively.
Findings
The overall prevalence of burnout symptoms was 23.0% prior to the pandemic, and that jumped to 36.1% at post-peak time. Higher rates of burnout were reported by nurses (38.0%) than physicians (28.6%).
However, the incidence rate of new burnout cases was higher among physicians, compared with nurses (26.7% vs 21.9%). Not surprisingly, a higher prevalence of burnout symptoms was observed in the post-peak period for all clinicians (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.53), and was higher for nurses (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.04), for those working overtime (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.48-3.02), and for personnel who directly engaged in patient care (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.35-2.60).
Physicians in general were much more likely to develop burnout symptoms related to the pandemic, compared with nurses (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.06-12.21).
When looking at findings on moral distress, Kok pointed out that it often arises in situations when the health care professional knows the right thing to do but is prevented from doing so. “Morally distressful situations all rose from December to June,” said Mr. Kok. “Scarcity was the most distressing. The other was where colleagues were perceived to be less skilled, and this had to do with the recruitment of people from outside of the ICU to provide care.”
Moral distress from scarcity and unskilled colleagues were both significantly related to burnout, he noted.
In the final model, working in a COVID-19 unit, stress from scarcity of resources and people, stress from unskilled colleagues, and stress from unsafe conditions were all related to burnout. “The stress of physicians was significantly higher,” said Kok. “Even though nurses had higher baseline burnout, it became less pronounced in June 2020. This indicates that burnout was significantly higher in physicians.”
Thus, Mr. Kok and colleagues concluded that overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout, and all ICU workers are at risk.
Burnout rates higher in physicians
Weighing in on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that the differences observed between physicians and nurses may have to do with the fact that “nurses have been smoldering all along and experiencing higher rates of burnout.
“They may have adapted better to the pandemic conditions, since they are more used to working overtime and short staffed, and spending far more time at the bedside,” he said. “Because of the volume of patients, physicians may be spending more hours doing patient care and are experiencing more burnout.”
For physicians, this may be a more significant change in the workload, as well as the complexity of the situation because of the pandemic. “Many things layer into it, such as [the fact] that there are no families present to give patients support, the complexity of care of these patients, and things like lack of PPE,” Dr. Martin said.
The study did not differentiate among physician groups, so it is unclear if the affected physicians were residents, fellows, or more senior staff. “Residents are often quite busy already, and don’t usually have the capacity to add more to their schedules, and maybe attendings were having to spend more time doing patient care,” Dr. Martin said. “In the United States, at least some personnel were restricted from working with COVID-19 patients. Medical students were removed in many places as well as nonessential staff, so that may have also added to their burnout.”
The study was conducted in the Netherlands, so there may be differences in the work environment, responsibilities of nurses vs. physicians, staffing, and so on. “But it still shows that burnout is very real among doctors and nurses working in the ICU in pandemic conditions,” he said.
Health care professionals working in critical care settings have been overburdened because of the plethora of COVID-19 cases, which has led to symptoms of burnout in both physicians and nurses, findings from a new study show.
“Overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout,” said lead study author Niek Kok, MSc, of IQ healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. “All ICU professionals are at the risk of this, and in our study, the incidence of physicians experiencing burnout was significantly higher than that of nurses in June 2020.”
This burnout can be explained by conditions caused by the pandemic, he noted, such as the scarcity of staff and resources and having to work with colleagues who were not qualified to work in critical care but who were there out of necessity.
Mr. Kok presented the findings of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
Burnout highest among critical care physicians
The ICU can be a stressful environment for both patients and health care personnel, and burnout is not uncommon among ICU clinicians. However, COVID-19 has amplified the degree of burnout being experienced by clinicians working in this setting. Critical care physicians now top the list of physicians experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, according to the Medscape report ‘Death by 1000 Thousand Cuts’: Physician Burnout and Suicide Report 2021.
The Medscape Nurse Career Satisfaction Report 2020, while not restricted to those working in critical care, also reported higher rates of burnout, compared with the prepandemic period. The percentage of nurses reporting being “very burned out” prior to the pandemic was 4%. Six months into the pandemic, that percentage soared to 18%.
In this study, Mr. Kok and colleagues examined the prevalence and incidence of burnout symptoms and moral distress in health care professionals working in the ICU, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“When the COVID-19 pandemic surfaced in the Netherlands, the health care professionals in our hospitals were motivated to do everything they could to provide the best care possible,” said Mr. Kok. “Many of the ICU professionals immediately realized that they would have to work longer hours.”
However, the health care professionals that he spoke with did have mixed feelings. Some were afraid of being infected with the virus, while others said that “it was very interesting times for them and that gave them extra motivation to do the work.
“Some physicians [and] the WHO warned that COVID-19 is not going to weathered by a heroic sprint – it is an arduous marathon that is going to go hand in hand with burnout symptoms,” Mr. Kok added. “It will eat away at our qualified ICU staff.”
Before and after data on burnout
It was widely believed that the COVID-19 pandemic would increase burnout symptoms, as had been demonstrated in studies of previous pandemics. However, Mr. Kok emphasized that there are no before and after measurements that transcend cross-sectional designs.
“The claim [has been] that it increases burnout – but there are no assessments of how it progresses in ICU professionals through time,” he said. “So what we really need is a comparison [of] before and after the pandemic.”
It is quite difficult to obtain this type of information because disruptive events like the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be predicted, he said. Thus, it is challenging to get a baseline measurement. But Mr. Kok pointed out that the study has both “before and after” measurements.
“By coincidence really, we had baseline data to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and had information that was collected before the pandemic,” he said.
In January 2020, a study began looking at the effects of ethics meetings on moral distress in ICU professionals. Data had been collected on moral distress and burnout on ICU professionals in December 2019. The first COVID-19 cases appeared in the Netherlands in February 2020.
A follow-up study was then conducted in May and June 2020, several months into the pandemic.
The longitudinal open cohort study included all ICU personnel who were working in five units within a single university medical center, plus another adult ICU that was based in a separate teaching hospital.
A total of 352 health care professionals responded to a baseline survey in October through December 2019, and then 233 responded to a follow-up survey sent in May and June 2020. The authors measured burnout symptoms and moral distress with the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Moral Distress Scale, respectively.
Findings
The overall prevalence of burnout symptoms was 23.0% prior to the pandemic, and that jumped to 36.1% at post-peak time. Higher rates of burnout were reported by nurses (38.0%) than physicians (28.6%).
However, the incidence rate of new burnout cases was higher among physicians, compared with nurses (26.7% vs 21.9%). Not surprisingly, a higher prevalence of burnout symptoms was observed in the post-peak period for all clinicians (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.53), and was higher for nurses (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.04), for those working overtime (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.48-3.02), and for personnel who directly engaged in patient care (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.35-2.60).
Physicians in general were much more likely to develop burnout symptoms related to the pandemic, compared with nurses (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.06-12.21).
When looking at findings on moral distress, Kok pointed out that it often arises in situations when the health care professional knows the right thing to do but is prevented from doing so. “Morally distressful situations all rose from December to June,” said Mr. Kok. “Scarcity was the most distressing. The other was where colleagues were perceived to be less skilled, and this had to do with the recruitment of people from outside of the ICU to provide care.”
Moral distress from scarcity and unskilled colleagues were both significantly related to burnout, he noted.
In the final model, working in a COVID-19 unit, stress from scarcity of resources and people, stress from unskilled colleagues, and stress from unsafe conditions were all related to burnout. “The stress of physicians was significantly higher,” said Kok. “Even though nurses had higher baseline burnout, it became less pronounced in June 2020. This indicates that burnout was significantly higher in physicians.”
Thus, Mr. Kok and colleagues concluded that overburdening ICU professionals during an extended period of time leads to burnout, and all ICU workers are at risk.
Burnout rates higher in physicians
Weighing in on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that the differences observed between physicians and nurses may have to do with the fact that “nurses have been smoldering all along and experiencing higher rates of burnout.
“They may have adapted better to the pandemic conditions, since they are more used to working overtime and short staffed, and spending far more time at the bedside,” he said. “Because of the volume of patients, physicians may be spending more hours doing patient care and are experiencing more burnout.”
For physicians, this may be a more significant change in the workload, as well as the complexity of the situation because of the pandemic. “Many things layer into it, such as [the fact] that there are no families present to give patients support, the complexity of care of these patients, and things like lack of PPE,” Dr. Martin said.
The study did not differentiate among physician groups, so it is unclear if the affected physicians were residents, fellows, or more senior staff. “Residents are often quite busy already, and don’t usually have the capacity to add more to their schedules, and maybe attendings were having to spend more time doing patient care,” Dr. Martin said. “In the United States, at least some personnel were restricted from working with COVID-19 patients. Medical students were removed in many places as well as nonessential staff, so that may have also added to their burnout.”
The study was conducted in the Netherlands, so there may be differences in the work environment, responsibilities of nurses vs. physicians, staffing, and so on. “But it still shows that burnout is very real among doctors and nurses working in the ICU in pandemic conditions,” he said.
FROM CCC50
Psychiatrist recounts haunting ordeal with an anonymous stalker
Looking back on his experience of being stalked by a former patient for nearly 1 year, William J. Newman, MD, regrets not reaching out to colleagues about the patient boundary violations earlier than he did.
“My mindset was: ‘Maybe I did something wrong that created this,’ ” Dr. Newman, professor and interim chair of psychiatry at Saint Louis University, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “That’s a common theme among victims of stalking, being kind of embarrassed and not wanting to share it with other people.”
Dr. Newman’s ordeal began in August 2014, when the first of several threatening emails messages were sent to his account at the University of California, Davis, where he held a faculty post and worked on the teaching service at the Sacramento Mental Health Treatment Center, a county hospital that serves mainly uninsured or underinsured populations. The messages always contained a nonspecific email recipient name and the first wasn’t terribly worrisome, Dr. Newman said. It basically read (profanities excluded): “What is wrong with you? Leave me alone. All I want is some privacy.”
About 3 months later, he received another message in a similar writing pattern, but the name of the sender was “god devil,” which raised a red flag to him. “Once you start to get religious concepts, people are compelled to commit acts when they believe they’re doing so beyond the laws of the land and are doing so for a religious purpose,” said Dr. Newman, who is immediate past president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
The content of the message contained the first name of a coworker and phrasing inferring suicide, which gave Dr. Newman a hint that it was someone he had cared for at the mental health treatment center, “but as anybody who has worked on a busy inpatient service can tell you, you encounter several suicidal patients, and this didn’t really narrow it down,” he said. “This told me the person had presented after a suicide attempt. In some ways, that made me a little more concerned, because because they don’t really worry about the consequences of being shot by law enforcement or dying in an attack.”
Dr. Newman contacted the university’s information technology team, which was able to trace all messages to an IP address from a computer located at a downtown branch of the public library, which had surveillance video. Armed with this information, he contacted the Sacramento Police Department to see if they would help. He had “what I can only describe as an unsatisfying and somewhat condescending conversation with an officer, who said: ‘Sir, we can’t just go around asking people questions without knowing they did something wrong. There’s nothing we’re going to do.’ ”
Between November 2014 and May 2015, Dr. Newman continued to receive periodic messages from the individual of varied length and intensity.
“Some messages were more disorganized and difficult to follow, while others were very intense and pointed about my imminent death,” he recalled. “I started to ignore these messages as much as possible, tried to put my head in the sand and move forward.”
However, one phrase contained in a message read “you won’t even recognize me,” which gave Dr. Newman pause. “It highlighted the idea that because I don’t know who this is, they could walk up to me on the sidewalk, and I would have no idea, which in its own right is somewhat terrorizing.”
At this point, he contacted the police again, telling them he was fearful for his imminent safety. He also met with his department chair and administrators, who helped Dr. Newman develop a plan to enter and exit the hospital at different times. Then, in May 2015, the stalker sent Dr. Newman another email message threatening not only his life, but the lives of his colleagues at the hospital.
“This was viewed as a terroristic threat, because [it inferred that] other people were going to be shot other than just me,” he said.
After this, Dr. Newman’s administrators contacted the police about the threat, who identified the individual through video surveillance footage at the public library and began to search for him. It was a patient who had been on testosterone and previously had sent similar messages to another mental health provider in town and wound up showing up at that person’s office with a loaded firearm.
“At that point, the police were called to the scene, picked the individual up, and took him to a local emergency room where he was placed on an involuntary 5150 psychiatric hold,” he said. “It was frustrating to me that this was very much minimized and kind of put to the side.”
Once he learned the stalker’s name, Dr. Newman had no recollection of the individual. “The patient had presented after a carbon monoxide overdose, had been sent to a local emergency room and came to my service,” he said. “It was a very nonconfrontational hospitalization, nothing out of the ordinary.”
At this point, the stalker was still at large, so Dr. Newman wrote farewell notes to his wife, children, and loved ones, “just in case,” he said. “I had those tucked away. That wasn’t an overly pleasant experience.” He also lived away from his family outside of Sacramento while police searched for his stalker.
In late May 2015, police located and arrested the individual, and Dr. Newman began a series of conversations with the District Attorney’s office. “They told me there were seven terroristic threat charges that had been levied. They said they were taking this very seriously and [that the case] would be going to trial.” About 1 year later, after Dr. Newman’s move to Missouri, the District Attorney indicated that there would be a court trial and that Dr. Newman would be asked to serve as a fact witness. “I gave them all the information I had, talked to investigators, and the process was moving along for about a year to the point that they had an anticipated trial date,” he said. About 1 year later, he received an automated phone message which stated that the individual had been released from jail. He called the District Attorney to ask what happened.
“He said the judge didn’t really want to deal with this [case] anymore, and accepted a plea with time served and released him,” Dr. Newman said. “That was the outcome of the situation.”
According to a 1997 study of 100 stalking victims, 94% made major lifestyle changes after their ordeal, 82% modified usual activities, 73% increased security measures, 70% curtailed social outings, 53% decreased/stopped work or school, and 39% relocated. “You do change a lot of what you do and how you do it in your life when you’ve had this experience, especially when it’s been a chronic experience for months or years,” said Dr. Newman, who is also medical director of adult psychiatric inpatient services for Saint Louis University. “To this day I get antsy any time I think about the story or prepare to talk about it. It remains uncomfortable even 6 years later, even without an ongoing direct threat at this point.”
The physiological impact of chronic stalking also takes its toll. The body releases adrenaline and cortisol as part of the fight or flight response, while chronic stress “is when you feel an increased stress response and have adrenaline and cortisol elevated for an extended period of time,” he said. “There are negative impacts in terms of increased inflammation in the body and in the brain. I have spoken to several professionals who have been stalked by former patients. Commonly, they have been diagnosed in the period after that with an autoimmune illness or a cancer. Less than a year after my stalking situation ended, I was diagnosed with a metastatic cancer and had to start chemotherapy. I would not at all be surprised that those things are highly related to one another.”
When patient boundary violations start to become problematic or worrisome, Dr. Newman advised reaching out to colleagues and law enforcement for help. “Don’t let it go on insidiously for an extended period of time,” he said. “I think that was the biggest lesson I learned.”
He reported having no financial disclosures.
Looking back on his experience of being stalked by a former patient for nearly 1 year, William J. Newman, MD, regrets not reaching out to colleagues about the patient boundary violations earlier than he did.
“My mindset was: ‘Maybe I did something wrong that created this,’ ” Dr. Newman, professor and interim chair of psychiatry at Saint Louis University, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “That’s a common theme among victims of stalking, being kind of embarrassed and not wanting to share it with other people.”
Dr. Newman’s ordeal began in August 2014, when the first of several threatening emails messages were sent to his account at the University of California, Davis, where he held a faculty post and worked on the teaching service at the Sacramento Mental Health Treatment Center, a county hospital that serves mainly uninsured or underinsured populations. The messages always contained a nonspecific email recipient name and the first wasn’t terribly worrisome, Dr. Newman said. It basically read (profanities excluded): “What is wrong with you? Leave me alone. All I want is some privacy.”
About 3 months later, he received another message in a similar writing pattern, but the name of the sender was “god devil,” which raised a red flag to him. “Once you start to get religious concepts, people are compelled to commit acts when they believe they’re doing so beyond the laws of the land and are doing so for a religious purpose,” said Dr. Newman, who is immediate past president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
The content of the message contained the first name of a coworker and phrasing inferring suicide, which gave Dr. Newman a hint that it was someone he had cared for at the mental health treatment center, “but as anybody who has worked on a busy inpatient service can tell you, you encounter several suicidal patients, and this didn’t really narrow it down,” he said. “This told me the person had presented after a suicide attempt. In some ways, that made me a little more concerned, because because they don’t really worry about the consequences of being shot by law enforcement or dying in an attack.”
Dr. Newman contacted the university’s information technology team, which was able to trace all messages to an IP address from a computer located at a downtown branch of the public library, which had surveillance video. Armed with this information, he contacted the Sacramento Police Department to see if they would help. He had “what I can only describe as an unsatisfying and somewhat condescending conversation with an officer, who said: ‘Sir, we can’t just go around asking people questions without knowing they did something wrong. There’s nothing we’re going to do.’ ”
Between November 2014 and May 2015, Dr. Newman continued to receive periodic messages from the individual of varied length and intensity.
“Some messages were more disorganized and difficult to follow, while others were very intense and pointed about my imminent death,” he recalled. “I started to ignore these messages as much as possible, tried to put my head in the sand and move forward.”
However, one phrase contained in a message read “you won’t even recognize me,” which gave Dr. Newman pause. “It highlighted the idea that because I don’t know who this is, they could walk up to me on the sidewalk, and I would have no idea, which in its own right is somewhat terrorizing.”
At this point, he contacted the police again, telling them he was fearful for his imminent safety. He also met with his department chair and administrators, who helped Dr. Newman develop a plan to enter and exit the hospital at different times. Then, in May 2015, the stalker sent Dr. Newman another email message threatening not only his life, but the lives of his colleagues at the hospital.
“This was viewed as a terroristic threat, because [it inferred that] other people were going to be shot other than just me,” he said.
After this, Dr. Newman’s administrators contacted the police about the threat, who identified the individual through video surveillance footage at the public library and began to search for him. It was a patient who had been on testosterone and previously had sent similar messages to another mental health provider in town and wound up showing up at that person’s office with a loaded firearm.
“At that point, the police were called to the scene, picked the individual up, and took him to a local emergency room where he was placed on an involuntary 5150 psychiatric hold,” he said. “It was frustrating to me that this was very much minimized and kind of put to the side.”
Once he learned the stalker’s name, Dr. Newman had no recollection of the individual. “The patient had presented after a carbon monoxide overdose, had been sent to a local emergency room and came to my service,” he said. “It was a very nonconfrontational hospitalization, nothing out of the ordinary.”
At this point, the stalker was still at large, so Dr. Newman wrote farewell notes to his wife, children, and loved ones, “just in case,” he said. “I had those tucked away. That wasn’t an overly pleasant experience.” He also lived away from his family outside of Sacramento while police searched for his stalker.
In late May 2015, police located and arrested the individual, and Dr. Newman began a series of conversations with the District Attorney’s office. “They told me there were seven terroristic threat charges that had been levied. They said they were taking this very seriously and [that the case] would be going to trial.” About 1 year later, after Dr. Newman’s move to Missouri, the District Attorney indicated that there would be a court trial and that Dr. Newman would be asked to serve as a fact witness. “I gave them all the information I had, talked to investigators, and the process was moving along for about a year to the point that they had an anticipated trial date,” he said. About 1 year later, he received an automated phone message which stated that the individual had been released from jail. He called the District Attorney to ask what happened.
“He said the judge didn’t really want to deal with this [case] anymore, and accepted a plea with time served and released him,” Dr. Newman said. “That was the outcome of the situation.”
According to a 1997 study of 100 stalking victims, 94% made major lifestyle changes after their ordeal, 82% modified usual activities, 73% increased security measures, 70% curtailed social outings, 53% decreased/stopped work or school, and 39% relocated. “You do change a lot of what you do and how you do it in your life when you’ve had this experience, especially when it’s been a chronic experience for months or years,” said Dr. Newman, who is also medical director of adult psychiatric inpatient services for Saint Louis University. “To this day I get antsy any time I think about the story or prepare to talk about it. It remains uncomfortable even 6 years later, even without an ongoing direct threat at this point.”
The physiological impact of chronic stalking also takes its toll. The body releases adrenaline and cortisol as part of the fight or flight response, while chronic stress “is when you feel an increased stress response and have adrenaline and cortisol elevated for an extended period of time,” he said. “There are negative impacts in terms of increased inflammation in the body and in the brain. I have spoken to several professionals who have been stalked by former patients. Commonly, they have been diagnosed in the period after that with an autoimmune illness or a cancer. Less than a year after my stalking situation ended, I was diagnosed with a metastatic cancer and had to start chemotherapy. I would not at all be surprised that those things are highly related to one another.”
When patient boundary violations start to become problematic or worrisome, Dr. Newman advised reaching out to colleagues and law enforcement for help. “Don’t let it go on insidiously for an extended period of time,” he said. “I think that was the biggest lesson I learned.”
He reported having no financial disclosures.
Looking back on his experience of being stalked by a former patient for nearly 1 year, William J. Newman, MD, regrets not reaching out to colleagues about the patient boundary violations earlier than he did.
“My mindset was: ‘Maybe I did something wrong that created this,’ ” Dr. Newman, professor and interim chair of psychiatry at Saint Louis University, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “That’s a common theme among victims of stalking, being kind of embarrassed and not wanting to share it with other people.”
Dr. Newman’s ordeal began in August 2014, when the first of several threatening emails messages were sent to his account at the University of California, Davis, where he held a faculty post and worked on the teaching service at the Sacramento Mental Health Treatment Center, a county hospital that serves mainly uninsured or underinsured populations. The messages always contained a nonspecific email recipient name and the first wasn’t terribly worrisome, Dr. Newman said. It basically read (profanities excluded): “What is wrong with you? Leave me alone. All I want is some privacy.”
About 3 months later, he received another message in a similar writing pattern, but the name of the sender was “god devil,” which raised a red flag to him. “Once you start to get religious concepts, people are compelled to commit acts when they believe they’re doing so beyond the laws of the land and are doing so for a religious purpose,” said Dr. Newman, who is immediate past president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
The content of the message contained the first name of a coworker and phrasing inferring suicide, which gave Dr. Newman a hint that it was someone he had cared for at the mental health treatment center, “but as anybody who has worked on a busy inpatient service can tell you, you encounter several suicidal patients, and this didn’t really narrow it down,” he said. “This told me the person had presented after a suicide attempt. In some ways, that made me a little more concerned, because because they don’t really worry about the consequences of being shot by law enforcement or dying in an attack.”
Dr. Newman contacted the university’s information technology team, which was able to trace all messages to an IP address from a computer located at a downtown branch of the public library, which had surveillance video. Armed with this information, he contacted the Sacramento Police Department to see if they would help. He had “what I can only describe as an unsatisfying and somewhat condescending conversation with an officer, who said: ‘Sir, we can’t just go around asking people questions without knowing they did something wrong. There’s nothing we’re going to do.’ ”
Between November 2014 and May 2015, Dr. Newman continued to receive periodic messages from the individual of varied length and intensity.
“Some messages were more disorganized and difficult to follow, while others were very intense and pointed about my imminent death,” he recalled. “I started to ignore these messages as much as possible, tried to put my head in the sand and move forward.”
However, one phrase contained in a message read “you won’t even recognize me,” which gave Dr. Newman pause. “It highlighted the idea that because I don’t know who this is, they could walk up to me on the sidewalk, and I would have no idea, which in its own right is somewhat terrorizing.”
At this point, he contacted the police again, telling them he was fearful for his imminent safety. He also met with his department chair and administrators, who helped Dr. Newman develop a plan to enter and exit the hospital at different times. Then, in May 2015, the stalker sent Dr. Newman another email message threatening not only his life, but the lives of his colleagues at the hospital.
“This was viewed as a terroristic threat, because [it inferred that] other people were going to be shot other than just me,” he said.
After this, Dr. Newman’s administrators contacted the police about the threat, who identified the individual through video surveillance footage at the public library and began to search for him. It was a patient who had been on testosterone and previously had sent similar messages to another mental health provider in town and wound up showing up at that person’s office with a loaded firearm.
“At that point, the police were called to the scene, picked the individual up, and took him to a local emergency room where he was placed on an involuntary 5150 psychiatric hold,” he said. “It was frustrating to me that this was very much minimized and kind of put to the side.”
Once he learned the stalker’s name, Dr. Newman had no recollection of the individual. “The patient had presented after a carbon monoxide overdose, had been sent to a local emergency room and came to my service,” he said. “It was a very nonconfrontational hospitalization, nothing out of the ordinary.”
At this point, the stalker was still at large, so Dr. Newman wrote farewell notes to his wife, children, and loved ones, “just in case,” he said. “I had those tucked away. That wasn’t an overly pleasant experience.” He also lived away from his family outside of Sacramento while police searched for his stalker.
In late May 2015, police located and arrested the individual, and Dr. Newman began a series of conversations with the District Attorney’s office. “They told me there were seven terroristic threat charges that had been levied. They said they were taking this very seriously and [that the case] would be going to trial.” About 1 year later, after Dr. Newman’s move to Missouri, the District Attorney indicated that there would be a court trial and that Dr. Newman would be asked to serve as a fact witness. “I gave them all the information I had, talked to investigators, and the process was moving along for about a year to the point that they had an anticipated trial date,” he said. About 1 year later, he received an automated phone message which stated that the individual had been released from jail. He called the District Attorney to ask what happened.
“He said the judge didn’t really want to deal with this [case] anymore, and accepted a plea with time served and released him,” Dr. Newman said. “That was the outcome of the situation.”
According to a 1997 study of 100 stalking victims, 94% made major lifestyle changes after their ordeal, 82% modified usual activities, 73% increased security measures, 70% curtailed social outings, 53% decreased/stopped work or school, and 39% relocated. “You do change a lot of what you do and how you do it in your life when you’ve had this experience, especially when it’s been a chronic experience for months or years,” said Dr. Newman, who is also medical director of adult psychiatric inpatient services for Saint Louis University. “To this day I get antsy any time I think about the story or prepare to talk about it. It remains uncomfortable even 6 years later, even without an ongoing direct threat at this point.”
The physiological impact of chronic stalking also takes its toll. The body releases adrenaline and cortisol as part of the fight or flight response, while chronic stress “is when you feel an increased stress response and have adrenaline and cortisol elevated for an extended period of time,” he said. “There are negative impacts in terms of increased inflammation in the body and in the brain. I have spoken to several professionals who have been stalked by former patients. Commonly, they have been diagnosed in the period after that with an autoimmune illness or a cancer. Less than a year after my stalking situation ended, I was diagnosed with a metastatic cancer and had to start chemotherapy. I would not at all be surprised that those things are highly related to one another.”
When patient boundary violations start to become problematic or worrisome, Dr. Newman advised reaching out to colleagues and law enforcement for help. “Don’t let it go on insidiously for an extended period of time,” he said. “I think that was the biggest lesson I learned.”
He reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM NPA 2021
ColCORONA: More questions than answers for colchicine in COVID-19
Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.
As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.
But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.
Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”
When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).
Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.
“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.
“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.
“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”
The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.
Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).
The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.
“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”
Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”
Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.
“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”
According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.
Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”
The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.
The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”
Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”
The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.
The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.
Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”
Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”
He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.
“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”
Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.
“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.
The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.
As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.
But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.
Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”
When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).
Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.
“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.
“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.
“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”
The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.
Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).
The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.
“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”
Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”
Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.
“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”
According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.
Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”
The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.
The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”
Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”
The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.
The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.
Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”
Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”
He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.
“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”
Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.
“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.
The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.
As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.
But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.
Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”
When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).
Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.
“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.
“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.
“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”
The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.
Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).
The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.
“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”
Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”
Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.
“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”
According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.
Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”
The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.
The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”
Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”
The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.
The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.
Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”
Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”
He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.
“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”
Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.
“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.
The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Finding a new approach to difficult diagnoses
Reducing – or managing – uncertainty
Beyond its clinical objective, the Socrates Project also seeks to further the discovery of previously unrecognized disease processes.
Many patients do not have a diagnosis that explains their signs and symptoms, despite a thorough evaluation, said Benjamin Singer, MD, assistant professor of pulmonology and critical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. To address that problem, he and his colleagues launched the Socrates Project. The service is intended for difficult diagnoses and is based on Socratic principles, particularly the role of iterative hypothesis testing in the process of diagnosis.
“We began the Socrates Project to assist physicians caring for patients who lack a specific diagnosis. In creating this service, we have found ourselves to be doctors for doctors – formalizing the curbside consultation,” Dr. Singer said.
Northwestern Medicine launched the Socrates Project in 2015. It’s a physician-to-physician consultation service that assists doctors working to diagnose conditions that have so far eluded detection. “Our service’s goal is to improve patient care by providing an opinion to the referring physician on diagnostic possibilities for a particular case and ideas to reduce – or at least manage – diagnostic uncertainty,” they write. “Our service model is similar to a tumor board, which exists as an interdisciplinary group operating in parallel to the clinical services, to provide consensus-based recommendations.”
Hospitalists at other institutions may be interested in starting a similar type of service at their own institution or collaborating with institutions who offer this type of service, Dr. Singer said.
At Northwestern Medicine, they are at work on the project’s next steps. “We are working to generate systematic data about our practice, particularly the types of referrals and outcomes,” he said.
Reference
1. Singer BD, et al. The Socrates Project for Difficult Diagnosis at Northwestern Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2020 February;15(2):116-125. doi:10.12788/jhm.3335.
Reducing – or managing – uncertainty
Reducing – or managing – uncertainty
Beyond its clinical objective, the Socrates Project also seeks to further the discovery of previously unrecognized disease processes.
Many patients do not have a diagnosis that explains their signs and symptoms, despite a thorough evaluation, said Benjamin Singer, MD, assistant professor of pulmonology and critical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. To address that problem, he and his colleagues launched the Socrates Project. The service is intended for difficult diagnoses and is based on Socratic principles, particularly the role of iterative hypothesis testing in the process of diagnosis.
“We began the Socrates Project to assist physicians caring for patients who lack a specific diagnosis. In creating this service, we have found ourselves to be doctors for doctors – formalizing the curbside consultation,” Dr. Singer said.
Northwestern Medicine launched the Socrates Project in 2015. It’s a physician-to-physician consultation service that assists doctors working to diagnose conditions that have so far eluded detection. “Our service’s goal is to improve patient care by providing an opinion to the referring physician on diagnostic possibilities for a particular case and ideas to reduce – or at least manage – diagnostic uncertainty,” they write. “Our service model is similar to a tumor board, which exists as an interdisciplinary group operating in parallel to the clinical services, to provide consensus-based recommendations.”
Hospitalists at other institutions may be interested in starting a similar type of service at their own institution or collaborating with institutions who offer this type of service, Dr. Singer said.
At Northwestern Medicine, they are at work on the project’s next steps. “We are working to generate systematic data about our practice, particularly the types of referrals and outcomes,” he said.
Reference
1. Singer BD, et al. The Socrates Project for Difficult Diagnosis at Northwestern Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2020 February;15(2):116-125. doi:10.12788/jhm.3335.
Beyond its clinical objective, the Socrates Project also seeks to further the discovery of previously unrecognized disease processes.
Many patients do not have a diagnosis that explains their signs and symptoms, despite a thorough evaluation, said Benjamin Singer, MD, assistant professor of pulmonology and critical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. To address that problem, he and his colleagues launched the Socrates Project. The service is intended for difficult diagnoses and is based on Socratic principles, particularly the role of iterative hypothesis testing in the process of diagnosis.
“We began the Socrates Project to assist physicians caring for patients who lack a specific diagnosis. In creating this service, we have found ourselves to be doctors for doctors – formalizing the curbside consultation,” Dr. Singer said.
Northwestern Medicine launched the Socrates Project in 2015. It’s a physician-to-physician consultation service that assists doctors working to diagnose conditions that have so far eluded detection. “Our service’s goal is to improve patient care by providing an opinion to the referring physician on diagnostic possibilities for a particular case and ideas to reduce – or at least manage – diagnostic uncertainty,” they write. “Our service model is similar to a tumor board, which exists as an interdisciplinary group operating in parallel to the clinical services, to provide consensus-based recommendations.”
Hospitalists at other institutions may be interested in starting a similar type of service at their own institution or collaborating with institutions who offer this type of service, Dr. Singer said.
At Northwestern Medicine, they are at work on the project’s next steps. “We are working to generate systematic data about our practice, particularly the types of referrals and outcomes,” he said.
Reference
1. Singer BD, et al. The Socrates Project for Difficult Diagnosis at Northwestern Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2020 February;15(2):116-125. doi:10.12788/jhm.3335.
Researchers examine factors associated with opioid use among migraineurs
Among patients with migraine who use prescription medications, the increasing use of prescription opioids is associated with chronic migraine, more severe disability, and anxiety and depression, according to an analysis published in the January issue of Headache . The use of prescription opioids also is associated with treatment-related variables such as poor acute treatment optimization and treatment in a pain clinic. The results indicate the continued need to educate patients and clinicians about the potential risks of opioids for migraineurs, according to the researchers.
In the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study, which the researchers analyzed for their investigation, one-third of migraineurs who use acute prescriptions reported using opioids. Among opioid users, 42% took opioids on 4 or more days per month. “These findings are like [those of] a previous report from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study and more recent findings from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study,” said Richard Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York. “High rates of opioid use are problematic because opioid use is associated with worsening of migraine over time.”
Opioids remain in widespread use for migraine, even though guidelines recommend against this treatment. Among migraineurs, opioid use is associated with more severe headache-related disability and greater use of health care resources. Opioid use also increases the risk of progressing from episodic migraine to chronic migraine.
A review of MAST data
Dr. Lipton and colleagues set out to identify the variables associated with the frequency of opioid use in people with migraine. Among the variables that they sought to examine were demographic characteristics, comorbidities, headache characteristics, medication use, and patterns of health care use. Dr. Lipton’s group hypothesized that migraine-related severity and burden would increase with increasing frequency of opioid use.
To conduct their research, the investigators examined data from the MAST study, a nationwide sample of American adults with migraine. They focused specifically on participants who reported receiving prescription acute medications. Participants eligible for this analysis reported 3 or more headache days in the previous 3 months and at least 1 monthly headache day in the previous month. In all, 15,133 participants met these criteria.
Dr. Lipton and colleagues categorized participants into four groups based on their frequency of opioid use. The groups had no opioid use, 3 or fewer monthly days of opioid use, 4 to 9 monthly days of opioid use, and 10 or more days of monthly opioid use. The last category is consistent with the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 criteria for overuse of opioids in migraine.
At baseline, MAST participants provided information about variables such as gender, age, marital status, smoking status, education, and income. Participants also reported how many times in the previous 6 months they had visited a primary care doctor, a neurologist, a headache specialist, or a pain specialist. Dr. Lipton’s group calculated monthly headache days using the number of days during the previous 3 months affected by headache. The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire was used to measure headache-related disability. The four-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) was used to screen for anxiety and depression, and the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-4) evaluated participants’ treatment optimization.
Men predominated among opioid users
The investigators included 4,701 MAST participants in their analysis. The population’s mean age was 45 years, and 71.6% of participants were women. Of the entire sample, 67.5% reported no opioid use, and 32.5% reported opioid use. Of the total study population, 18.7% of patients took opioids 3 or fewer days per month, 6.5% took opioids 4 to 9 days per month, and 7.3% took opioids on 10 or more days per month.
Opioid users did not differ from nonusers on race or marital status. Men were overrepresented among all groups of opioid users, however. In addition, opioid use was more prevalent among participants with fewer than 4 years of college education (34.9%) than among participants with 4 or more years of college (30.8%). The proportion of participants with fewer than 4 years of college increased with increasing monthly opioid use. Furthermore, opioid use increased with decreasing household income. As opioid use increased, rates of employment decreased. Approximately 33% of the entire sample were obese, and the proportion of obese participants increased with increasing days per month of opioid use.
The most frequent setting during the previous 6 months for participants seeking care was primary care (49.7%). The next most frequent setting was neurology units (20.9%), pain clinics (8.3%), and headache clinics (7.7%). The prevalence of opioid use was 37.5% among participants with primary care visits, 37.3% among participants with neurologist visits, 43.0% among participants with headache clinic visits, and 53.5% with pain clinic visits.
About 15% of the population had chronic migraine. The prevalence of chronic migraine increased with increasing frequency of opioid use. About 49% of the sample had allodynia, and the prevalence of allodynia increased with increasing frequency of opioid use. Overall, disability was moderate to severe in 57.3% of participants. Participants who used opioids on 3 or fewer days per month had the lowest prevalence of moderate to severe disability (50.2%), and participants who used opioids on 10 or more days per month had the highest prevalence of moderate to severe disability (83.8%).
Approximately 21% of participants had anxiety or depression. The lowest prevalence of anxiety or depression was among participants who took opioids on 3 or fewer days per month (17.4%), and the highest prevalence was among participants who took opioids on 10 or more days per month (43.2%). About 39% of the population had very poor to poor treatment optimization. Among opioid nonusers, 35.6% had very poor to poor treatment optimization, and 59.4% of participants who used opioids on 10 or more days per month had very poor to poor treatment optimization.
Dr. Lipton and colleagues also examined the study population’s use of triptans. Overall, 51.5% of participants reported taking triptans. The prevalence of triptan use was highest among participants who did not use opioids (64.1%) and lowest among participants who used opioids on 3 or fewer days per month (20.5%). Triptan use increased as monthly days of opioid use increased.
Pain clinics and opioid prescription
“In the general population, women are more likely to receive opioids than men,” said Dr. Lipton. “This [finding] could reflect, in part, that women have more pain disorders than men and are more likely to seek medical care for pain than men.” In the current study, however, men with migraine were more likely to receive opioid prescriptions than were women with migraine. One potential explanation for this finding is that men with migraine are less likely to receive a migraine diagnosis, which might attenuate opioid prescribing, than women with migraine. “It may be that opioids are perceived to be serious drugs for serious pain, and that some physicians may be more likely to prescribe opioids to men because the disorder is taken more seriously in men than women,” said Dr. Lipton.
The observation that opioids were more likely to be prescribed for people treated in pain clinics “is consistent with my understanding of practice patterns,” he added. “Generally, neurologists strive to find effective acute treatment alternatives to opioids. The emergence of [drug classes known as] gepants and ditans provides a helpful set of alternatives to tritpans.”
Dr. Lipton and his colleagues plan further research into the treatment of migraineurs. “In a claims analysis, we showed that when people with migraine fail a triptan, they are most likely to get an opioid as their next drug,” he said. “Reasonable [clinicians] might disagree on the next step. The next step, in the absence of contraindications, could be a different oral triptan, a nonoral triptan, or a gepant or ditan. We are planning a randomized trial to probe this question.”
Why are opioids still being used?
The study’s reliance on patients’ self-report and its retrospective design are two of its weaknesses, said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. One strength, however, is that the stratified sampling methodology produced a study population that accurately reflects the demographic characteristics of the U.S. adult population, he added. Another strength is the investigators’ examination of opioid use by patient characteristics such as marital status, education, income, obesity, and smoking.
Given the harmful effects of opioids in migraine, it is hard to understand why as much as one-third of study participants using acute care medication for migraine were using opioids, said Dr. Rapoport. Using opioids for the acute treatment of migraine attacks often indicates inadequate treatment optimization, which leads to ongoing headache. As a consequence, patients may take more medication, which can increase headache frequency and lead to diagnoses of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache. Although the study found an association between the increased use of opioids and decreased household income and increased unemployment, smoking, and obesity, “it is not possible to assign causality to any of these associations, even though some would argue that decreased socioeconomic status was somehow related to more headache, disability, obesity, smoking, and unemployment,” he added.
“The paper suggests that future research should look at the risk factors for use of opioids and should determine if depression is a risk factor for or a consequence of opioid use,” said Dr. Rapoport. “Interventional studies designed to improve the acute care of migraine attacks might be able to reduce the use of opioids. I have not used opioids or butalbital-containing medication in my office for many years.”
This study was funded and sponsored by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories group of companies, Princeton, N.J. Dr. Lipton has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, the National Headache Foundation, and the Migraine Research Fund. He serves as a consultant, serves as an advisory board member, or has received honoraria from Alder, Allergan, American Headache Society, Autonomic Technologies, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva, Inc. He receives royalties from Wolff’s Headache, 8th Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) and holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven.
SOURCE: Lipton RB, et al. Headache. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14018. 2020;61(1):103-16.
Among patients with migraine who use prescription medications, the increasing use of prescription opioids is associated with chronic migraine, more severe disability, and anxiety and depression, according to an analysis published in the January issue of Headache . The use of prescription opioids also is associated with treatment-related variables such as poor acute treatment optimization and treatment in a pain clinic. The results indicate the continued need to educate patients and clinicians about the potential risks of opioids for migraineurs, according to the researchers.
In the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study, which the researchers analyzed for their investigation, one-third of migraineurs who use acute prescriptions reported using opioids. Among opioid users, 42% took opioids on 4 or more days per month. “These findings are like [those of] a previous report from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study and more recent findings from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study,” said Richard Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York. “High rates of opioid use are problematic because opioid use is associated with worsening of migraine over time.”
Opioids remain in widespread use for migraine, even though guidelines recommend against this treatment. Among migraineurs, opioid use is associated with more severe headache-related disability and greater use of health care resources. Opioid use also increases the risk of progressing from episodic migraine to chronic migraine.
A review of MAST data
Dr. Lipton and colleagues set out to identify the variables associated with the frequency of opioid use in people with migraine. Among the variables that they sought to examine were demographic characteristics, comorbidities, headache characteristics, medication use, and patterns of health care use. Dr. Lipton’s group hypothesized that migraine-related severity and burden would increase with increasing frequency of opioid use.
To conduct their research, the investigators examined data from the MAST study, a nationwide sample of American adults with migraine. They focused specifically on participants who reported receiving prescription acute medications. Participants eligible for this analysis reported 3 or more headache days in the previous 3 months and at least 1 monthly headache day in the previous month. In all, 15,133 participants met these criteria.
Dr. Lipton and colleagues categorized participants into four groups based on their frequency of opioid use. The groups had no opioid use, 3 or fewer monthly days of opioid use, 4 to 9 monthly days of opioid use, and 10 or more days of monthly opioid use. The last category is consistent with the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 criteria for overuse of opioids in migraine.
At baseline, MAST participants provided information about variables such as gender, age, marital status, smoking status, education, and income. Participants also reported how many times in the previous 6 months they had visited a primary care doctor, a neurologist, a headache specialist, or a pain specialist. Dr. Lipton’s group calculated monthly headache days using the number of days during the previous 3 months affected by headache. The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire was used to measure headache-related disability. The four-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) was used to screen for anxiety and depression, and the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-4) evaluated participants’ treatment optimization.
Men predominated among opioid users
The investigators included 4,701 MAST participants in their analysis. The population’s mean age was 45 years, and 71.6% of participants were women. Of the entire sample, 67.5% reported no opioid use, and 32.5% reported opioid use. Of the total study population, 18.7% of patients took opioids 3 or fewer days per month, 6.5% took opioids 4 to 9 days per month, and 7.3% took opioids on 10 or more days per month.
Opioid users did not differ from nonusers on race or marital status. Men were overrepresented among all groups of opioid users, however. In addition, opioid use was more prevalent among participants with fewer than 4 years of college education (34.9%) than among participants with 4 or more years of college (30.8%). The proportion of participants with fewer than 4 years of college increased with increasing monthly opioid use. Furthermore, opioid use increased with decreasing household income. As opioid use increased, rates of employment decreased. Approximately 33% of the entire sample were obese, and the proportion of obese participants increased with increasing days per month of opioid use.
The most frequent setting during the previous 6 months for participants seeking care was primary care (49.7%). The next most frequent setting was neurology units (20.9%), pain clinics (8.3%), and headache clinics (7.7%). The prevalence of opioid use was 37.5% among participants with primary care visits, 37.3% among participants with neurologist visits, 43.0% among participants with headache clinic visits, and 53.5% with pain clinic visits.
About 15% of the population had chronic migraine. The prevalence of chronic migraine increased with increasing frequency of opioid use. About 49% of the sample had allodynia, and the prevalence of allodynia increased with increasing frequency of opioid use. Overall, disability was moderate to severe in 57.3% of participants. Participants who used opioids on 3 or fewer days per month had the lowest prevalence of moderate to severe disability (50.2%), and participants who used opioids on 10 or more days per month had the highest prevalence of moderate to severe disability (83.8%).
Approximately 21% of participants had anxiety or depression. The lowest prevalence of anxiety or depression was among participants who took opioids on 3 or fewer days per month (17.4%), and the highest prevalence was among participants who took opioids on 10 or more days per month (43.2%). About 39% of the population had very poor to poor treatment optimization. Among opioid nonusers, 35.6% had very poor to poor treatment optimization, and 59.4% of participants who used opioids on 10 or more days per month had very poor to poor treatment optimization.
Dr. Lipton and colleagues also examined the study population’s use of triptans. Overall, 51.5% of participants reported taking triptans. The prevalence of triptan use was highest among participants who did not use opioids (64.1%) and lowest among participants who used opioids on 3 or fewer days per month (20.5%). Triptan use increased as monthly days of opioid use increased.
Pain clinics and opioid prescription
“In the general population, women are more likely to receive opioids than men,” said Dr. Lipton. “This [finding] could reflect, in part, that women have more pain disorders than men and are more likely to seek medical care for pain than men.” In the current study, however, men with migraine were more likely to receive opioid prescriptions than were women with migraine. One potential explanation for this finding is that men with migraine are less likely to receive a migraine diagnosis, which might attenuate opioid prescribing, than women with migraine. “It may be that opioids are perceived to be serious drugs for serious pain, and that some physicians may be more likely to prescribe opioids to men because the disorder is taken more seriously in men than women,” said Dr. Lipton.
The observation that opioids were more likely to be prescribed for people treated in pain clinics “is consistent with my understanding of practice patterns,” he added. “Generally, neurologists strive to find effective acute treatment alternatives to opioids. The emergence of [drug classes known as] gepants and ditans provides a helpful set of alternatives to tritpans.”
Dr. Lipton and his colleagues plan further research into the treatment of migraineurs. “In a claims analysis, we showed that when people with migraine fail a triptan, they are most likely to get an opioid as their next drug,” he said. “Reasonable [clinicians] might disagree on the next step. The next step, in the absence of contraindications, could be a different oral triptan, a nonoral triptan, or a gepant or ditan. We are planning a randomized trial to probe this question.”
Why are opioids still being used?
The study’s reliance on patients’ self-report and its retrospective design are two of its weaknesses, said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. One strength, however, is that the stratified sampling methodology produced a study population that accurately reflects the demographic characteristics of the U.S. adult population, he added. Another strength is the investigators’ examination of opioid use by patient characteristics such as marital status, education, income, obesity, and smoking.
Given the harmful effects of opioids in migraine, it is hard to understand why as much as one-third of study participants using acute care medication for migraine were using opioids, said Dr. Rapoport. Using opioids for the acute treatment of migraine attacks often indicates inadequate treatment optimization, which leads to ongoing headache. As a consequence, patients may take more medication, which can increase headache frequency and lead to diagnoses of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache. Although the study found an association between the increased use of opioids and decreased household income and increased unemployment, smoking, and obesity, “it is not possible to assign causality to any of these associations, even though some would argue that decreased socioeconomic status was somehow related to more headache, disability, obesity, smoking, and unemployment,” he added.
“The paper suggests that future research should look at the risk factors for use of opioids and should determine if depression is a risk factor for or a consequence of opioid use,” said Dr. Rapoport. “Interventional studies designed to improve the acute care of migraine attacks might be able to reduce the use of opioids. I have not used opioids or butalbital-containing medication in my office for many years.”
This study was funded and sponsored by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories group of companies, Princeton, N.J. Dr. Lipton has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, the National Headache Foundation, and the Migraine Research Fund. He serves as a consultant, serves as an advisory board member, or has received honoraria from Alder, Allergan, American Headache Society, Autonomic Technologies, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva, Inc. He receives royalties from Wolff’s Headache, 8th Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) and holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven.
SOURCE: Lipton RB, et al. Headache. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14018. 2020;61(1):103-16.
Among patients with migraine who use prescription medications, the increasing use of prescription opioids is associated with chronic migraine, more severe disability, and anxiety and depression, according to an analysis published in the January issue of Headache . The use of prescription opioids also is associated with treatment-related variables such as poor acute treatment optimization and treatment in a pain clinic. The results indicate the continued need to educate patients and clinicians about the potential risks of opioids for migraineurs, according to the researchers.
In the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study, which the researchers analyzed for their investigation, one-third of migraineurs who use acute prescriptions reported using opioids. Among opioid users, 42% took opioids on 4 or more days per month. “These findings are like [those of] a previous report from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study and more recent findings from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study,” said Richard Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York. “High rates of opioid use are problematic because opioid use is associated with worsening of migraine over time.”
Opioids remain in widespread use for migraine, even though guidelines recommend against this treatment. Among migraineurs, opioid use is associated with more severe headache-related disability and greater use of health care resources. Opioid use also increases the risk of progressing from episodic migraine to chronic migraine.
A review of MAST data
Dr. Lipton and colleagues set out to identify the variables associated with the frequency of opioid use in people with migraine. Among the variables that they sought to examine were demographic characteristics, comorbidities, headache characteristics, medication use, and patterns of health care use. Dr. Lipton’s group hypothesized that migraine-related severity and burden would increase with increasing frequency of opioid use.
To conduct their research, the investigators examined data from the MAST study, a nationwide sample of American adults with migraine. They focused specifically on participants who reported receiving prescription acute medications. Participants eligible for this analysis reported 3 or more headache days in the previous 3 months and at least 1 monthly headache day in the previous month. In all, 15,133 participants met these criteria.
Dr. Lipton and colleagues categorized participants into four groups based on their frequency of opioid use. The groups had no opioid use, 3 or fewer monthly days of opioid use, 4 to 9 monthly days of opioid use, and 10 or more days of monthly opioid use. The last category is consistent with the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 criteria for overuse of opioids in migraine.
At baseline, MAST participants provided information about variables such as gender, age, marital status, smoking status, education, and income. Participants also reported how many times in the previous 6 months they had visited a primary care doctor, a neurologist, a headache specialist, or a pain specialist. Dr. Lipton’s group calculated monthly headache days using the number of days during the previous 3 months affected by headache. The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire was used to measure headache-related disability. The four-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) was used to screen for anxiety and depression, and the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-4) evaluated participants’ treatment optimization.
Men predominated among opioid users
The investigators included 4,701 MAST participants in their analysis. The population’s mean age was 45 years, and 71.6% of participants were women. Of the entire sample, 67.5% reported no opioid use, and 32.5% reported opioid use. Of the total study population, 18.7% of patients took opioids 3 or fewer days per month, 6.5% took opioids 4 to 9 days per month, and 7.3% took opioids on 10 or more days per month.
Opioid users did not differ from nonusers on race or marital status. Men were overrepresented among all groups of opioid users, however. In addition, opioid use was more prevalent among participants with fewer than 4 years of college education (34.9%) than among participants with 4 or more years of college (30.8%). The proportion of participants with fewer than 4 years of college increased with increasing monthly opioid use. Furthermore, opioid use increased with decreasing household income. As opioid use increased, rates of employment decreased. Approximately 33% of the entire sample were obese, and the proportion of obese participants increased with increasing days per month of opioid use.
The most frequent setting during the previous 6 months for participants seeking care was primary care (49.7%). The next most frequent setting was neurology units (20.9%), pain clinics (8.3%), and headache clinics (7.7%). The prevalence of opioid use was 37.5% among participants with primary care visits, 37.3% among participants with neurologist visits, 43.0% among participants with headache clinic visits, and 53.5% with pain clinic visits.
About 15% of the population had chronic migraine. The prevalence of chronic migraine increased with increasing frequency of opioid use. About 49% of the sample had allodynia, and the prevalence of allodynia increased with increasing frequency of opioid use. Overall, disability was moderate to severe in 57.3% of participants. Participants who used opioids on 3 or fewer days per month had the lowest prevalence of moderate to severe disability (50.2%), and participants who used opioids on 10 or more days per month had the highest prevalence of moderate to severe disability (83.8%).
Approximately 21% of participants had anxiety or depression. The lowest prevalence of anxiety or depression was among participants who took opioids on 3 or fewer days per month (17.4%), and the highest prevalence was among participants who took opioids on 10 or more days per month (43.2%). About 39% of the population had very poor to poor treatment optimization. Among opioid nonusers, 35.6% had very poor to poor treatment optimization, and 59.4% of participants who used opioids on 10 or more days per month had very poor to poor treatment optimization.
Dr. Lipton and colleagues also examined the study population’s use of triptans. Overall, 51.5% of participants reported taking triptans. The prevalence of triptan use was highest among participants who did not use opioids (64.1%) and lowest among participants who used opioids on 3 or fewer days per month (20.5%). Triptan use increased as monthly days of opioid use increased.
Pain clinics and opioid prescription
“In the general population, women are more likely to receive opioids than men,” said Dr. Lipton. “This [finding] could reflect, in part, that women have more pain disorders than men and are more likely to seek medical care for pain than men.” In the current study, however, men with migraine were more likely to receive opioid prescriptions than were women with migraine. One potential explanation for this finding is that men with migraine are less likely to receive a migraine diagnosis, which might attenuate opioid prescribing, than women with migraine. “It may be that opioids are perceived to be serious drugs for serious pain, and that some physicians may be more likely to prescribe opioids to men because the disorder is taken more seriously in men than women,” said Dr. Lipton.
The observation that opioids were more likely to be prescribed for people treated in pain clinics “is consistent with my understanding of practice patterns,” he added. “Generally, neurologists strive to find effective acute treatment alternatives to opioids. The emergence of [drug classes known as] gepants and ditans provides a helpful set of alternatives to tritpans.”
Dr. Lipton and his colleagues plan further research into the treatment of migraineurs. “In a claims analysis, we showed that when people with migraine fail a triptan, they are most likely to get an opioid as their next drug,” he said. “Reasonable [clinicians] might disagree on the next step. The next step, in the absence of contraindications, could be a different oral triptan, a nonoral triptan, or a gepant or ditan. We are planning a randomized trial to probe this question.”
Why are opioids still being used?
The study’s reliance on patients’ self-report and its retrospective design are two of its weaknesses, said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. One strength, however, is that the stratified sampling methodology produced a study population that accurately reflects the demographic characteristics of the U.S. adult population, he added. Another strength is the investigators’ examination of opioid use by patient characteristics such as marital status, education, income, obesity, and smoking.
Given the harmful effects of opioids in migraine, it is hard to understand why as much as one-third of study participants using acute care medication for migraine were using opioids, said Dr. Rapoport. Using opioids for the acute treatment of migraine attacks often indicates inadequate treatment optimization, which leads to ongoing headache. As a consequence, patients may take more medication, which can increase headache frequency and lead to diagnoses of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache. Although the study found an association between the increased use of opioids and decreased household income and increased unemployment, smoking, and obesity, “it is not possible to assign causality to any of these associations, even though some would argue that decreased socioeconomic status was somehow related to more headache, disability, obesity, smoking, and unemployment,” he added.
“The paper suggests that future research should look at the risk factors for use of opioids and should determine if depression is a risk factor for or a consequence of opioid use,” said Dr. Rapoport. “Interventional studies designed to improve the acute care of migraine attacks might be able to reduce the use of opioids. I have not used opioids or butalbital-containing medication in my office for many years.”
This study was funded and sponsored by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories group of companies, Princeton, N.J. Dr. Lipton has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, the National Headache Foundation, and the Migraine Research Fund. He serves as a consultant, serves as an advisory board member, or has received honoraria from Alder, Allergan, American Headache Society, Autonomic Technologies, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva, Inc. He receives royalties from Wolff’s Headache, 8th Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) and holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven.
SOURCE: Lipton RB, et al. Headache. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14018. 2020;61(1):103-16.
FROM HEADACHE
Expert calls for paradigm shift in lab monitoring of some dermatology drugs
From time to time, Joslyn Kirby, MD, asks other physicians about their experience with certain medications used in dermatology, especially when something new hits the market.
“Sometimes I get an answer like, ‘The last time I used that medicine, my patient needed a liver transplant,’ ” Dr. Kirby, associate professor of dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “It’s typically a story of something rare, uncommon, and awful. The challenge with an anecdote is that for all its power, it has a lower level of evidence. But it sticks with us and influences us more than a better level of evidence because it’s a situation and a story that we might relate to.”
Dr. Kirby said that when she thinks about managing side effects from drugs used in dermatology, it usually relates to something common and low-risk such as sore, dry skin with isotretinoin use. In contrast, if there is an uncommon but serious side effect, then mitigation rather than management is key. “I want to mitigate the risk – meaning warn my patient about it or be careful about how I select my patients when it is a serious side effect that happens infrequently,” she said. “The worst combination is a frequent and severe side effect. That is something we should avoid, for sure.”
Isotretinoin
But another aspect of prescribing a new drug for patients can be less clear-cut, Dr. Kirby continued, such as the rationale for routine lab monitoring. She began by discussing one of her male patients with moderate to severe acne. After he failed oral antibiotics and topical retinoids, she recommended isotretinoin, which carries a risk of hypertriglyceridemia-associated pancreatitis. “Early in my career, I was getting a lot of monthly labs in patients on this drug that were totally normal and not influencing my practice,” Dr. Kirby recalled. “We’ve seen studies coming out on isotretinoin lab monitoring, showing us that we can keep our patients safe and that we really don’t need to be checking labs as often, because lab changes are infrequent.”
In one of those studies, researchers evaluated 1,863 patients treated with isotretinoin for acne between Jan. 1, 2008, and June 30, 2017 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82[1]:72-9).Over time, fewer than 1% of patients screened developed grade 3 or greater triglyceride testing abnormalities, while fewer than 0.5% developed liver function testing (LFT) abnormalities. Authors of a separate systematic review concluded that for patients on isotretinoin therapy without elevated baseline triglycerides, or risk thereof, monitoring triglycerides is of little value (Br J Dermatol. 2017 Oct;177[4]:960-6). Of the 25 patients in the analysis who developed pancreatitis on isotretinoin, only 3 had elevated triglycerides at baseline.
“I was taught that I need to check triglycerides frequently due to the risk of pancreatitis developing with isotretinoin use,” Dr. Kirby said. “Lipid changes on therapy are expected, but they tend to peak early, meaning the first 3 months of treatment when we’re ramping up from a starting dose to a maintenance dose. It’s rare for somebody to be a late bloomer, meaning that they have totally normal labs in the first 3 months and then suddenly develop an abnormality. People are either going to demonstrate an abnormality early or not have one at all.”
When Dr. Kirby starts patients on isotretinoin, she orders baseline LFTs and a lipid panel and repeats them 60 days later. “If everything is fine or only mildly high, we don’t do more testing, only a review of systems,” she said. “This is valuable to our patients because fear of needles and fainting peak during adolescence.”
Spironolactone
The clinical use of regularly monitoring potassium levels in young women taking spironolactone for acne has also been questioned. The drug has been linked to an increased risk for hyperkalemia, but the prevalence is unclear. “I got a lot of normal potassium levels in these patients [when] I was in training and I really questioned, ‘Why am I doing this? What is the rationale?’ ” Dr. Kirby said.
In a study that informed her own practice, researchers reviewed the rate of hyperkalemia in 974 healthy young women taking spironolactone for acne or for an endocrine disorder with associated acne between Dec. 1, 2000, and March 31, 2014 (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Sep;151[9]:941-4). Of the total of 1,802 serum potassium measurements taken during treatment, 13 (0.72%) were mildly elevated levels and none of the patients had a potassium level above 5.5 mEq/L. Retesting within 1 to 3 weeks in 6 of 13 patients with elevated levels found that potassium levels were normal. “The recommendation for spironolactone in healthy women is not to check the potassium level,” Dr. Kirby said, adding that she does counsel patients about the risk of breast tenderness (which can occur 5% to 40% of the time) and spotting (which can occur in 10% to 20% of patients). Gynecomastia can occur in 10% to 30% of men, which is one of the reasons she does not use spironolactone in male patients.
TB testing and biologics
Whether or not to test for TB in patients with psoriasis taking biologic therapies represents another conundrum, she continued. Patients taking biologics are at risk of reactivation of latent TB infection, but in her experience, package inserts contain language like “perform TB testing at baseline, then periodically,” or “use at baseline, then with active TB symptoms,” and “after treatment is discontinued.”
“What the inserts didn’t recommend was to perform TB testing every year, which is what my routine had been,” Dr. Kirby said. “In the United States, thankfully we don’t have a lot of TB.” In a study that informed her own practice, researchers at a single academic medical center retrospectively reviewed the TB seroconversion rate among 316 patients treated with second-generation biologics (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Oct 1;S0190-9622[20]32676-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.075). It found that only six patients (2%) converted and had a positive TB test later during treatment with the biologic. “Of these six people, all had grown up outside the U.S., had traveled outside of the U.S., or were in a group living situation,” said Dr. Kirby, who was not affiliated with the study.
“This informs our rationale for how we can do this testing. If insurance requires it every year, fine. But if they don’t, I ask patients about travel, about their living situation, and how they’re feeling. If everything’s going great, I don’t order TB testing. I do favor the interferon-gamma release assays because they’re a lot more effective than PPDs [purified protein derivative skin tests]. Also, PPDs are difficult for patients who have a low rate of returning to have that test read.”
Terbinafine for onychomycosis
Dr. Kirby also discussed the rationale for ordering regular LFTs in patients taking terbinafine for onychomycosis. “There is a risk of drug-induced liver injury from taking terbinafine, but it’s rare,” she said. “Can we be thoughtful about which patients we expose?”
Evidence suggests that patients with hyperkeratosis greater than 2 mm, with nail matrix involvement, with 50% or more of the nail involved, or having concomitant peripheral vascular disease and diabetes are recalcitrant to treatment with terbinafine
(J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Apr;80[4]:853-67). “If we can frame this risk, then we can frame it for our patients,” she said. “We’re more likely to cause liver injury with an antibiotic. When it comes to an oral antifungal, itraconazole is more likely than terbinafine to cause liver injury. The rate of liver injury with terbinafine is only about 2 out of 100,000. It’s five times more likely with itraconazole and 21 times more likely with Augmentin.”
She recommends obtaining a baseline LFT in patients starting terbinafine therapy “to make sure their liver is normal from the start.” In addition, she advised, “let them know that there is a TB seroconversion risk of about 1 in 50,000 people, and that if it happens there would be symptomatic changes. They would maybe notice pruritus and have a darkening in their urine, and they’d have some flu-like symptoms, which would mean stop the drug and get some care.”
Dr. Kirby emphasized that a patient’s propensity for developing drug-induced liver injury from terbinafine use is not predictable from LFT monitoring. “What you’re more likely to find is an asymptomatic LFT rise in about 1% of people,” she said.
She disclosed that she has received honoraria from AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma.
From time to time, Joslyn Kirby, MD, asks other physicians about their experience with certain medications used in dermatology, especially when something new hits the market.
“Sometimes I get an answer like, ‘The last time I used that medicine, my patient needed a liver transplant,’ ” Dr. Kirby, associate professor of dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “It’s typically a story of something rare, uncommon, and awful. The challenge with an anecdote is that for all its power, it has a lower level of evidence. But it sticks with us and influences us more than a better level of evidence because it’s a situation and a story that we might relate to.”
Dr. Kirby said that when she thinks about managing side effects from drugs used in dermatology, it usually relates to something common and low-risk such as sore, dry skin with isotretinoin use. In contrast, if there is an uncommon but serious side effect, then mitigation rather than management is key. “I want to mitigate the risk – meaning warn my patient about it or be careful about how I select my patients when it is a serious side effect that happens infrequently,” she said. “The worst combination is a frequent and severe side effect. That is something we should avoid, for sure.”
Isotretinoin
But another aspect of prescribing a new drug for patients can be less clear-cut, Dr. Kirby continued, such as the rationale for routine lab monitoring. She began by discussing one of her male patients with moderate to severe acne. After he failed oral antibiotics and topical retinoids, she recommended isotretinoin, which carries a risk of hypertriglyceridemia-associated pancreatitis. “Early in my career, I was getting a lot of monthly labs in patients on this drug that were totally normal and not influencing my practice,” Dr. Kirby recalled. “We’ve seen studies coming out on isotretinoin lab monitoring, showing us that we can keep our patients safe and that we really don’t need to be checking labs as often, because lab changes are infrequent.”
In one of those studies, researchers evaluated 1,863 patients treated with isotretinoin for acne between Jan. 1, 2008, and June 30, 2017 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82[1]:72-9).Over time, fewer than 1% of patients screened developed grade 3 or greater triglyceride testing abnormalities, while fewer than 0.5% developed liver function testing (LFT) abnormalities. Authors of a separate systematic review concluded that for patients on isotretinoin therapy without elevated baseline triglycerides, or risk thereof, monitoring triglycerides is of little value (Br J Dermatol. 2017 Oct;177[4]:960-6). Of the 25 patients in the analysis who developed pancreatitis on isotretinoin, only 3 had elevated triglycerides at baseline.
“I was taught that I need to check triglycerides frequently due to the risk of pancreatitis developing with isotretinoin use,” Dr. Kirby said. “Lipid changes on therapy are expected, but they tend to peak early, meaning the first 3 months of treatment when we’re ramping up from a starting dose to a maintenance dose. It’s rare for somebody to be a late bloomer, meaning that they have totally normal labs in the first 3 months and then suddenly develop an abnormality. People are either going to demonstrate an abnormality early or not have one at all.”
When Dr. Kirby starts patients on isotretinoin, she orders baseline LFTs and a lipid panel and repeats them 60 days later. “If everything is fine or only mildly high, we don’t do more testing, only a review of systems,” she said. “This is valuable to our patients because fear of needles and fainting peak during adolescence.”
Spironolactone
The clinical use of regularly monitoring potassium levels in young women taking spironolactone for acne has also been questioned. The drug has been linked to an increased risk for hyperkalemia, but the prevalence is unclear. “I got a lot of normal potassium levels in these patients [when] I was in training and I really questioned, ‘Why am I doing this? What is the rationale?’ ” Dr. Kirby said.
In a study that informed her own practice, researchers reviewed the rate of hyperkalemia in 974 healthy young women taking spironolactone for acne or for an endocrine disorder with associated acne between Dec. 1, 2000, and March 31, 2014 (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Sep;151[9]:941-4). Of the total of 1,802 serum potassium measurements taken during treatment, 13 (0.72%) were mildly elevated levels and none of the patients had a potassium level above 5.5 mEq/L. Retesting within 1 to 3 weeks in 6 of 13 patients with elevated levels found that potassium levels were normal. “The recommendation for spironolactone in healthy women is not to check the potassium level,” Dr. Kirby said, adding that she does counsel patients about the risk of breast tenderness (which can occur 5% to 40% of the time) and spotting (which can occur in 10% to 20% of patients). Gynecomastia can occur in 10% to 30% of men, which is one of the reasons she does not use spironolactone in male patients.
TB testing and biologics
Whether or not to test for TB in patients with psoriasis taking biologic therapies represents another conundrum, she continued. Patients taking biologics are at risk of reactivation of latent TB infection, but in her experience, package inserts contain language like “perform TB testing at baseline, then periodically,” or “use at baseline, then with active TB symptoms,” and “after treatment is discontinued.”
“What the inserts didn’t recommend was to perform TB testing every year, which is what my routine had been,” Dr. Kirby said. “In the United States, thankfully we don’t have a lot of TB.” In a study that informed her own practice, researchers at a single academic medical center retrospectively reviewed the TB seroconversion rate among 316 patients treated with second-generation biologics (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Oct 1;S0190-9622[20]32676-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.075). It found that only six patients (2%) converted and had a positive TB test later during treatment with the biologic. “Of these six people, all had grown up outside the U.S., had traveled outside of the U.S., or were in a group living situation,” said Dr. Kirby, who was not affiliated with the study.
“This informs our rationale for how we can do this testing. If insurance requires it every year, fine. But if they don’t, I ask patients about travel, about their living situation, and how they’re feeling. If everything’s going great, I don’t order TB testing. I do favor the interferon-gamma release assays because they’re a lot more effective than PPDs [purified protein derivative skin tests]. Also, PPDs are difficult for patients who have a low rate of returning to have that test read.”
Terbinafine for onychomycosis
Dr. Kirby also discussed the rationale for ordering regular LFTs in patients taking terbinafine for onychomycosis. “There is a risk of drug-induced liver injury from taking terbinafine, but it’s rare,” she said. “Can we be thoughtful about which patients we expose?”
Evidence suggests that patients with hyperkeratosis greater than 2 mm, with nail matrix involvement, with 50% or more of the nail involved, or having concomitant peripheral vascular disease and diabetes are recalcitrant to treatment with terbinafine
(J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Apr;80[4]:853-67). “If we can frame this risk, then we can frame it for our patients,” she said. “We’re more likely to cause liver injury with an antibiotic. When it comes to an oral antifungal, itraconazole is more likely than terbinafine to cause liver injury. The rate of liver injury with terbinafine is only about 2 out of 100,000. It’s five times more likely with itraconazole and 21 times more likely with Augmentin.”
She recommends obtaining a baseline LFT in patients starting terbinafine therapy “to make sure their liver is normal from the start.” In addition, she advised, “let them know that there is a TB seroconversion risk of about 1 in 50,000 people, and that if it happens there would be symptomatic changes. They would maybe notice pruritus and have a darkening in their urine, and they’d have some flu-like symptoms, which would mean stop the drug and get some care.”
Dr. Kirby emphasized that a patient’s propensity for developing drug-induced liver injury from terbinafine use is not predictable from LFT monitoring. “What you’re more likely to find is an asymptomatic LFT rise in about 1% of people,” she said.
She disclosed that she has received honoraria from AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma.
From time to time, Joslyn Kirby, MD, asks other physicians about their experience with certain medications used in dermatology, especially when something new hits the market.
“Sometimes I get an answer like, ‘The last time I used that medicine, my patient needed a liver transplant,’ ” Dr. Kirby, associate professor of dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “It’s typically a story of something rare, uncommon, and awful. The challenge with an anecdote is that for all its power, it has a lower level of evidence. But it sticks with us and influences us more than a better level of evidence because it’s a situation and a story that we might relate to.”
Dr. Kirby said that when she thinks about managing side effects from drugs used in dermatology, it usually relates to something common and low-risk such as sore, dry skin with isotretinoin use. In contrast, if there is an uncommon but serious side effect, then mitigation rather than management is key. “I want to mitigate the risk – meaning warn my patient about it or be careful about how I select my patients when it is a serious side effect that happens infrequently,” she said. “The worst combination is a frequent and severe side effect. That is something we should avoid, for sure.”
Isotretinoin
But another aspect of prescribing a new drug for patients can be less clear-cut, Dr. Kirby continued, such as the rationale for routine lab monitoring. She began by discussing one of her male patients with moderate to severe acne. After he failed oral antibiotics and topical retinoids, she recommended isotretinoin, which carries a risk of hypertriglyceridemia-associated pancreatitis. “Early in my career, I was getting a lot of monthly labs in patients on this drug that were totally normal and not influencing my practice,” Dr. Kirby recalled. “We’ve seen studies coming out on isotretinoin lab monitoring, showing us that we can keep our patients safe and that we really don’t need to be checking labs as often, because lab changes are infrequent.”
In one of those studies, researchers evaluated 1,863 patients treated with isotretinoin for acne between Jan. 1, 2008, and June 30, 2017 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82[1]:72-9).Over time, fewer than 1% of patients screened developed grade 3 or greater triglyceride testing abnormalities, while fewer than 0.5% developed liver function testing (LFT) abnormalities. Authors of a separate systematic review concluded that for patients on isotretinoin therapy without elevated baseline triglycerides, or risk thereof, monitoring triglycerides is of little value (Br J Dermatol. 2017 Oct;177[4]:960-6). Of the 25 patients in the analysis who developed pancreatitis on isotretinoin, only 3 had elevated triglycerides at baseline.
“I was taught that I need to check triglycerides frequently due to the risk of pancreatitis developing with isotretinoin use,” Dr. Kirby said. “Lipid changes on therapy are expected, but they tend to peak early, meaning the first 3 months of treatment when we’re ramping up from a starting dose to a maintenance dose. It’s rare for somebody to be a late bloomer, meaning that they have totally normal labs in the first 3 months and then suddenly develop an abnormality. People are either going to demonstrate an abnormality early or not have one at all.”
When Dr. Kirby starts patients on isotretinoin, she orders baseline LFTs and a lipid panel and repeats them 60 days later. “If everything is fine or only mildly high, we don’t do more testing, only a review of systems,” she said. “This is valuable to our patients because fear of needles and fainting peak during adolescence.”
Spironolactone
The clinical use of regularly monitoring potassium levels in young women taking spironolactone for acne has also been questioned. The drug has been linked to an increased risk for hyperkalemia, but the prevalence is unclear. “I got a lot of normal potassium levels in these patients [when] I was in training and I really questioned, ‘Why am I doing this? What is the rationale?’ ” Dr. Kirby said.
In a study that informed her own practice, researchers reviewed the rate of hyperkalemia in 974 healthy young women taking spironolactone for acne or for an endocrine disorder with associated acne between Dec. 1, 2000, and March 31, 2014 (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Sep;151[9]:941-4). Of the total of 1,802 serum potassium measurements taken during treatment, 13 (0.72%) were mildly elevated levels and none of the patients had a potassium level above 5.5 mEq/L. Retesting within 1 to 3 weeks in 6 of 13 patients with elevated levels found that potassium levels were normal. “The recommendation for spironolactone in healthy women is not to check the potassium level,” Dr. Kirby said, adding that she does counsel patients about the risk of breast tenderness (which can occur 5% to 40% of the time) and spotting (which can occur in 10% to 20% of patients). Gynecomastia can occur in 10% to 30% of men, which is one of the reasons she does not use spironolactone in male patients.
TB testing and biologics
Whether or not to test for TB in patients with psoriasis taking biologic therapies represents another conundrum, she continued. Patients taking biologics are at risk of reactivation of latent TB infection, but in her experience, package inserts contain language like “perform TB testing at baseline, then periodically,” or “use at baseline, then with active TB symptoms,” and “after treatment is discontinued.”
“What the inserts didn’t recommend was to perform TB testing every year, which is what my routine had been,” Dr. Kirby said. “In the United States, thankfully we don’t have a lot of TB.” In a study that informed her own practice, researchers at a single academic medical center retrospectively reviewed the TB seroconversion rate among 316 patients treated with second-generation biologics (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Oct 1;S0190-9622[20]32676-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.075). It found that only six patients (2%) converted and had a positive TB test later during treatment with the biologic. “Of these six people, all had grown up outside the U.S., had traveled outside of the U.S., or were in a group living situation,” said Dr. Kirby, who was not affiliated with the study.
“This informs our rationale for how we can do this testing. If insurance requires it every year, fine. But if they don’t, I ask patients about travel, about their living situation, and how they’re feeling. If everything’s going great, I don’t order TB testing. I do favor the interferon-gamma release assays because they’re a lot more effective than PPDs [purified protein derivative skin tests]. Also, PPDs are difficult for patients who have a low rate of returning to have that test read.”
Terbinafine for onychomycosis
Dr. Kirby also discussed the rationale for ordering regular LFTs in patients taking terbinafine for onychomycosis. “There is a risk of drug-induced liver injury from taking terbinafine, but it’s rare,” she said. “Can we be thoughtful about which patients we expose?”
Evidence suggests that patients with hyperkeratosis greater than 2 mm, with nail matrix involvement, with 50% or more of the nail involved, or having concomitant peripheral vascular disease and diabetes are recalcitrant to treatment with terbinafine
(J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Apr;80[4]:853-67). “If we can frame this risk, then we can frame it for our patients,” she said. “We’re more likely to cause liver injury with an antibiotic. When it comes to an oral antifungal, itraconazole is more likely than terbinafine to cause liver injury. The rate of liver injury with terbinafine is only about 2 out of 100,000. It’s five times more likely with itraconazole and 21 times more likely with Augmentin.”
She recommends obtaining a baseline LFT in patients starting terbinafine therapy “to make sure their liver is normal from the start.” In addition, she advised, “let them know that there is a TB seroconversion risk of about 1 in 50,000 people, and that if it happens there would be symptomatic changes. They would maybe notice pruritus and have a darkening in their urine, and they’d have some flu-like symptoms, which would mean stop the drug and get some care.”
Dr. Kirby emphasized that a patient’s propensity for developing drug-induced liver injury from terbinafine use is not predictable from LFT monitoring. “What you’re more likely to find is an asymptomatic LFT rise in about 1% of people,” she said.
She disclosed that she has received honoraria from AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma.
FROM ODAC 2021
Treatment of horizontal neck lines
The interplay of the neck subunits, as outlined in the recent article by Friedman and colleagues, requires multiple combination treatments, including fat removal, augmentation of deficient bony prominences, relaxation of hyperkinetic muscles, tissue tightening, suture anchoring, skin resurfacing, and treatment of dyschromia.
Horizontal neck lines are linear etched lines or furrows that commonly appear at a young age and are not caused by the aging process. The anatomy of the neck and the manner in which it bends contributes to their development at an early age. It is hypothesized that variable adipose tissue thickness and fibromuscular bands contribute to deepening of these lines in overweight patients. The widespread use of cell phones, laptops, and tablets has increased their prevalence and this has become one of the most common concerns of patients aged under 30 years in my clinic.
Various treatments have been recommended for neck rejuvenation, including hyaluronic acid and dilute calcium hydroxylapatite. In my experience, neither of these treatments adequately resolves the horizontal neck lines, and more importantly, prevents them from reoccurring. In addition, given the variability in skin and adipose thickness in the anterior neck, side effects including lumps, irregular correction, and the Tyndall effect, are common, particularly with incorrect choice of filler and injection depth.
The fibromuscular bands along the transverse neck lines pose one of the complexities in treatment with injectable filler. I have had significant improvement in the aesthetic outcome of my patients by using subcision along the transverse bands extensively prior to injection with hyaluronic acid fillers. The subcision is done with a 27-gauge needle to release the fibrous bands that tether the tissue down. If a patient has excess adipose tissue on either side of the bands, injectable fillers often do not improve the appearance of the lines and can make the neck appear heavier. The use of subcision followed by one to six treatments of deoxycholic acid in the adjacent adipose tissue prior to injection with a filler will help even out the contour of the neck, decrease adipose tissue bulges, release the fibrous bands, and fill the lines properly.
Working from home and on handheld devices has increased the appearance of neck lines in young populations. Despite the vast array of treatments in the aging neck, none have been very successful for this particular problem in the young. We need an improved understanding of these lines and better studies to investigate treatment options and long-term correction.
References:
Friedman O et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 Feb;20(2):569-76.
Brandt FS and Boker A. Dermatol Clin. 2004 Apr;22(2):159-66.
Tseng F and Yu H. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Aug 19;7(8):e2366.
Dibernardo BE. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013 Apr;15(2):56-64.
Jones D et al. Dermatol Surg. 2016 Oct;4 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S235-42.
Lee SK and Kim HS. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018 Aug;17(4):590-5.
Chao YY et al. Dermatol Surg. 2011 Oct;37(10):1542-5.
Han TY et al. Dermatol Surg. 2011 Sep;37(9):1291-6.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
The interplay of the neck subunits, as outlined in the recent article by Friedman and colleagues, requires multiple combination treatments, including fat removal, augmentation of deficient bony prominences, relaxation of hyperkinetic muscles, tissue tightening, suture anchoring, skin resurfacing, and treatment of dyschromia.
Horizontal neck lines are linear etched lines or furrows that commonly appear at a young age and are not caused by the aging process. The anatomy of the neck and the manner in which it bends contributes to their development at an early age. It is hypothesized that variable adipose tissue thickness and fibromuscular bands contribute to deepening of these lines in overweight patients. The widespread use of cell phones, laptops, and tablets has increased their prevalence and this has become one of the most common concerns of patients aged under 30 years in my clinic.
Various treatments have been recommended for neck rejuvenation, including hyaluronic acid and dilute calcium hydroxylapatite. In my experience, neither of these treatments adequately resolves the horizontal neck lines, and more importantly, prevents them from reoccurring. In addition, given the variability in skin and adipose thickness in the anterior neck, side effects including lumps, irregular correction, and the Tyndall effect, are common, particularly with incorrect choice of filler and injection depth.
The fibromuscular bands along the transverse neck lines pose one of the complexities in treatment with injectable filler. I have had significant improvement in the aesthetic outcome of my patients by using subcision along the transverse bands extensively prior to injection with hyaluronic acid fillers. The subcision is done with a 27-gauge needle to release the fibrous bands that tether the tissue down. If a patient has excess adipose tissue on either side of the bands, injectable fillers often do not improve the appearance of the lines and can make the neck appear heavier. The use of subcision followed by one to six treatments of deoxycholic acid in the adjacent adipose tissue prior to injection with a filler will help even out the contour of the neck, decrease adipose tissue bulges, release the fibrous bands, and fill the lines properly.
Working from home and on handheld devices has increased the appearance of neck lines in young populations. Despite the vast array of treatments in the aging neck, none have been very successful for this particular problem in the young. We need an improved understanding of these lines and better studies to investigate treatment options and long-term correction.
References:
Friedman O et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 Feb;20(2):569-76.
Brandt FS and Boker A. Dermatol Clin. 2004 Apr;22(2):159-66.
Tseng F and Yu H. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Aug 19;7(8):e2366.
Dibernardo BE. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013 Apr;15(2):56-64.
Jones D et al. Dermatol Surg. 2016 Oct;4 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S235-42.
Lee SK and Kim HS. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018 Aug;17(4):590-5.
Chao YY et al. Dermatol Surg. 2011 Oct;37(10):1542-5.
Han TY et al. Dermatol Surg. 2011 Sep;37(9):1291-6.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
The interplay of the neck subunits, as outlined in the recent article by Friedman and colleagues, requires multiple combination treatments, including fat removal, augmentation of deficient bony prominences, relaxation of hyperkinetic muscles, tissue tightening, suture anchoring, skin resurfacing, and treatment of dyschromia.
Horizontal neck lines are linear etched lines or furrows that commonly appear at a young age and are not caused by the aging process. The anatomy of the neck and the manner in which it bends contributes to their development at an early age. It is hypothesized that variable adipose tissue thickness and fibromuscular bands contribute to deepening of these lines in overweight patients. The widespread use of cell phones, laptops, and tablets has increased their prevalence and this has become one of the most common concerns of patients aged under 30 years in my clinic.
Various treatments have been recommended for neck rejuvenation, including hyaluronic acid and dilute calcium hydroxylapatite. In my experience, neither of these treatments adequately resolves the horizontal neck lines, and more importantly, prevents them from reoccurring. In addition, given the variability in skin and adipose thickness in the anterior neck, side effects including lumps, irregular correction, and the Tyndall effect, are common, particularly with incorrect choice of filler and injection depth.
The fibromuscular bands along the transverse neck lines pose one of the complexities in treatment with injectable filler. I have had significant improvement in the aesthetic outcome of my patients by using subcision along the transverse bands extensively prior to injection with hyaluronic acid fillers. The subcision is done with a 27-gauge needle to release the fibrous bands that tether the tissue down. If a patient has excess adipose tissue on either side of the bands, injectable fillers often do not improve the appearance of the lines and can make the neck appear heavier. The use of subcision followed by one to six treatments of deoxycholic acid in the adjacent adipose tissue prior to injection with a filler will help even out the contour of the neck, decrease adipose tissue bulges, release the fibrous bands, and fill the lines properly.
Working from home and on handheld devices has increased the appearance of neck lines in young populations. Despite the vast array of treatments in the aging neck, none have been very successful for this particular problem in the young. We need an improved understanding of these lines and better studies to investigate treatment options and long-term correction.
References:
Friedman O et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 Feb;20(2):569-76.
Brandt FS and Boker A. Dermatol Clin. 2004 Apr;22(2):159-66.
Tseng F and Yu H. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Aug 19;7(8):e2366.
Dibernardo BE. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013 Apr;15(2):56-64.
Jones D et al. Dermatol Surg. 2016 Oct;4 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S235-42.
Lee SK and Kim HS. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018 Aug;17(4):590-5.
Chao YY et al. Dermatol Surg. 2011 Oct;37(10):1542-5.
Han TY et al. Dermatol Surg. 2011 Sep;37(9):1291-6.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
PFO closure reduces migraine: New meta-analysis
A meta-analysis of two randomized studies evaluating patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure as a treatment strategy for migraine has shown significant benefits in several key endpoints, prompting the authors to conclude the approach warrants reevaluation.
The pooled analysis of patient-level data from the PRIMA and PREMIUM studies, both of which evaluated the Amplatzer PFO Occluder device (Abbott Vascular), showed that
The study, led by Mohammad K. Mojadidi, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology on Feb. 8, 2021.
Commenting on the article, the coauthor of an accompanying editorial, Zubair Ahmed, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said the meta-analysis gave some useful new information but is not enough to recommend PFO closure routinely for patients with migraine.
“This meta-analysis looked at different endpoints that are more relevant to current clinical practice than those in the two original studies, and the results show that we shouldn’t rule out PFO closure as a treatment strategy for some migraine patients,” Dr. Ahmed stated. “But we’re still not sure exactly which patients are most likely to benefit from this approach, and we need additional studies to gain more understanding on that.”
The study authors noted that there is an established link between the presence of PFO and migraine, especially migraine with aura. In observational studies of PFO closure for cryptogenic stroke, the vast majority of patients who also had migraine reported a more than 50% reduction in migraine days per month after PFO closure.
However, two recent randomized clinical trials evaluating the Amplatzer PFO Occluder device for reducing the frequency and duration of episodic migraine headaches did not meet their respective primary endpoints, although they did show significant benefit of PFO closure in most of their secondary endpoints.
The current meta-analysis pooled individual participant data from the two trials to increase the power to detect the effect of percutaneous PFO closure for treating patients with episodic migraine compared with medical therapy alone.
In the two studies including a total of 337 patients, 176 were randomized to PFO closure and 161 to medical treatment only. At 12 months, three of the four efficacy endpoints evaluated in the meta-analysis were significantly reduced in the PFO-closure group. These were mean reduction of monthly migraine days (–3.1 days vs. –1.9 days; P = .02), mean reduction of monthly migraine attacks (–2.0 vs. –1.4; P = .01), and number of patients who experienced complete cessation of migraine (9% vs. 0.7%; P < .001).
The responder rate, defined as more than a 50% reduction in migraine attacks, showed a trend towards an increase in the PFO-closure group but did not achieve statistical significance (38% vs. 29%; P = .13).
For the safety analysis, nine procedure-related and four device-related adverse events occurred in 245 patients who eventually received devices. All events were transient and resolved.
Better effect in patients with aura
Patients with migraine with aura, in particular frequent aura, had a significantly greater reduction in migraine days and a higher incidence of complete migraine cessation following PFO closure versus no closure, the authors reported.
In those without aura, PFO closure did not significantly reduce migraine days or improve complete headache cessation. However, some patients without aura did respond to PFO closure, which was statistically significant for reduction of migraine attacks (–2.0 vs. –1.0; P = .03).
“The interaction between the brain that is susceptible to migraine and the plethora of potential triggers is complex. A PFO may be the potential pathway for a variety of chemical triggers, such as serotonin from platelets, and although less frequent, some people with migraine without aura may trigger their migraine through this mechanism,” the researchers suggested. This hypothesis will be tested in the RELIEF trial, which is now being planned.
In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Robert J. Sommer, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, pointed out that the meta-analysis demonstrates benefit of PFO closure in the migraine population for the first time.
“Moreover, the investigators defined a population of patients who may benefit most from PFO closure, those with migraine with frequent aura, suggesting that these may be different physiologically than other migraine subtypes. The analysis also places the PRIMA and PREMIUM outcomes in the context of endpoints that are more practical and are more commonly assessed in current clinical trials,” the editorialists noted.
Many unanswered questions
But the editorialists highlighted several significant limitations of the analysis, including “pooling of patient cohorts, methods, and outcome measures that might not be entirely comparable,” which they say could have introduced bias.
They also pointed out that the underlying pathophysiological mechanism linking migraine symptoms to PFO remains unknown. They explain that the mechanism is thought to involve the right-to-left passage of systemic venous blood, with some component – which would normally be eliminated or reduced on passage through the pulmonary vasculature – reaching the cerebral circulation via the PFO in supranormal concentrations and acting as a trigger for migraine activity in patients with susceptible brains.
But not all patients with migraine who have PFO benefit from PFO closure, they noted, and therefore presumably have PFO-unrelated migraines. There is no verified way to distinguish between these two groups at present.
“Once we learn to identify the subset of migraine patients in whom PFOs are actually causal of headache symptoms, screening and treatment of PFO for migraine can become a reality,” they wrote.
Although the meta-analysis is a step in the right direction, “it is not a home run,” Dr. Ahmed elaborated. “This was a post hoc analysis of two studies, neither of which showed significant benefits on their primary endpoints. That weakens the findings somewhat.”
He added: “At present, PFO closure is not routinely recommended as a migraine treatment strategy as we haven’t been sure which patients are most likely to benefit. And while this meta-analysis suggests patients with aura may be more likely to benefit, one quarter of patients without aura in the PREMIUM trial responded to PFO closure, so it’s not just about aura.
“There are still many unanswered questions.
“I don’t think the new information from this meta-analysis is enough to persuade me to change my practice, but it is a small building block in the overall picture and suggests this may be a suitable strategy for some patients in future,” he concluded.
The study had no outside funding. Participant-level data were provided by Abbott. Several coauthors were on the steering committee for the PREMIUM or PRIMA trials. Dr. Ahmed reported receiving consulting fees from, Amgen, AbbVie, electroCore, and Eli Lilly; serving on advisory boards for Amgen and Supernus; serving as a speaker for AbbVie; and receiving funding for an investigator-initiated trial from Teva and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A meta-analysis of two randomized studies evaluating patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure as a treatment strategy for migraine has shown significant benefits in several key endpoints, prompting the authors to conclude the approach warrants reevaluation.
The pooled analysis of patient-level data from the PRIMA and PREMIUM studies, both of which evaluated the Amplatzer PFO Occluder device (Abbott Vascular), showed that
The study, led by Mohammad K. Mojadidi, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology on Feb. 8, 2021.
Commenting on the article, the coauthor of an accompanying editorial, Zubair Ahmed, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said the meta-analysis gave some useful new information but is not enough to recommend PFO closure routinely for patients with migraine.
“This meta-analysis looked at different endpoints that are more relevant to current clinical practice than those in the two original studies, and the results show that we shouldn’t rule out PFO closure as a treatment strategy for some migraine patients,” Dr. Ahmed stated. “But we’re still not sure exactly which patients are most likely to benefit from this approach, and we need additional studies to gain more understanding on that.”
The study authors noted that there is an established link between the presence of PFO and migraine, especially migraine with aura. In observational studies of PFO closure for cryptogenic stroke, the vast majority of patients who also had migraine reported a more than 50% reduction in migraine days per month after PFO closure.
However, two recent randomized clinical trials evaluating the Amplatzer PFO Occluder device for reducing the frequency and duration of episodic migraine headaches did not meet their respective primary endpoints, although they did show significant benefit of PFO closure in most of their secondary endpoints.
The current meta-analysis pooled individual participant data from the two trials to increase the power to detect the effect of percutaneous PFO closure for treating patients with episodic migraine compared with medical therapy alone.
In the two studies including a total of 337 patients, 176 were randomized to PFO closure and 161 to medical treatment only. At 12 months, three of the four efficacy endpoints evaluated in the meta-analysis were significantly reduced in the PFO-closure group. These were mean reduction of monthly migraine days (–3.1 days vs. –1.9 days; P = .02), mean reduction of monthly migraine attacks (–2.0 vs. –1.4; P = .01), and number of patients who experienced complete cessation of migraine (9% vs. 0.7%; P < .001).
The responder rate, defined as more than a 50% reduction in migraine attacks, showed a trend towards an increase in the PFO-closure group but did not achieve statistical significance (38% vs. 29%; P = .13).
For the safety analysis, nine procedure-related and four device-related adverse events occurred in 245 patients who eventually received devices. All events were transient and resolved.
Better effect in patients with aura
Patients with migraine with aura, in particular frequent aura, had a significantly greater reduction in migraine days and a higher incidence of complete migraine cessation following PFO closure versus no closure, the authors reported.
In those without aura, PFO closure did not significantly reduce migraine days or improve complete headache cessation. However, some patients without aura did respond to PFO closure, which was statistically significant for reduction of migraine attacks (–2.0 vs. –1.0; P = .03).
“The interaction between the brain that is susceptible to migraine and the plethora of potential triggers is complex. A PFO may be the potential pathway for a variety of chemical triggers, such as serotonin from platelets, and although less frequent, some people with migraine without aura may trigger their migraine through this mechanism,” the researchers suggested. This hypothesis will be tested in the RELIEF trial, which is now being planned.
In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Robert J. Sommer, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, pointed out that the meta-analysis demonstrates benefit of PFO closure in the migraine population for the first time.
“Moreover, the investigators defined a population of patients who may benefit most from PFO closure, those with migraine with frequent aura, suggesting that these may be different physiologically than other migraine subtypes. The analysis also places the PRIMA and PREMIUM outcomes in the context of endpoints that are more practical and are more commonly assessed in current clinical trials,” the editorialists noted.
Many unanswered questions
But the editorialists highlighted several significant limitations of the analysis, including “pooling of patient cohorts, methods, and outcome measures that might not be entirely comparable,” which they say could have introduced bias.
They also pointed out that the underlying pathophysiological mechanism linking migraine symptoms to PFO remains unknown. They explain that the mechanism is thought to involve the right-to-left passage of systemic venous blood, with some component – which would normally be eliminated or reduced on passage through the pulmonary vasculature – reaching the cerebral circulation via the PFO in supranormal concentrations and acting as a trigger for migraine activity in patients with susceptible brains.
But not all patients with migraine who have PFO benefit from PFO closure, they noted, and therefore presumably have PFO-unrelated migraines. There is no verified way to distinguish between these two groups at present.
“Once we learn to identify the subset of migraine patients in whom PFOs are actually causal of headache symptoms, screening and treatment of PFO for migraine can become a reality,” they wrote.
Although the meta-analysis is a step in the right direction, “it is not a home run,” Dr. Ahmed elaborated. “This was a post hoc analysis of two studies, neither of which showed significant benefits on their primary endpoints. That weakens the findings somewhat.”
He added: “At present, PFO closure is not routinely recommended as a migraine treatment strategy as we haven’t been sure which patients are most likely to benefit. And while this meta-analysis suggests patients with aura may be more likely to benefit, one quarter of patients without aura in the PREMIUM trial responded to PFO closure, so it’s not just about aura.
“There are still many unanswered questions.
“I don’t think the new information from this meta-analysis is enough to persuade me to change my practice, but it is a small building block in the overall picture and suggests this may be a suitable strategy for some patients in future,” he concluded.
The study had no outside funding. Participant-level data were provided by Abbott. Several coauthors were on the steering committee for the PREMIUM or PRIMA trials. Dr. Ahmed reported receiving consulting fees from, Amgen, AbbVie, electroCore, and Eli Lilly; serving on advisory boards for Amgen and Supernus; serving as a speaker for AbbVie; and receiving funding for an investigator-initiated trial from Teva and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A meta-analysis of two randomized studies evaluating patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure as a treatment strategy for migraine has shown significant benefits in several key endpoints, prompting the authors to conclude the approach warrants reevaluation.
The pooled analysis of patient-level data from the PRIMA and PREMIUM studies, both of which evaluated the Amplatzer PFO Occluder device (Abbott Vascular), showed that
The study, led by Mohammad K. Mojadidi, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology on Feb. 8, 2021.
Commenting on the article, the coauthor of an accompanying editorial, Zubair Ahmed, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said the meta-analysis gave some useful new information but is not enough to recommend PFO closure routinely for patients with migraine.
“This meta-analysis looked at different endpoints that are more relevant to current clinical practice than those in the two original studies, and the results show that we shouldn’t rule out PFO closure as a treatment strategy for some migraine patients,” Dr. Ahmed stated. “But we’re still not sure exactly which patients are most likely to benefit from this approach, and we need additional studies to gain more understanding on that.”
The study authors noted that there is an established link between the presence of PFO and migraine, especially migraine with aura. In observational studies of PFO closure for cryptogenic stroke, the vast majority of patients who also had migraine reported a more than 50% reduction in migraine days per month after PFO closure.
However, two recent randomized clinical trials evaluating the Amplatzer PFO Occluder device for reducing the frequency and duration of episodic migraine headaches did not meet their respective primary endpoints, although they did show significant benefit of PFO closure in most of their secondary endpoints.
The current meta-analysis pooled individual participant data from the two trials to increase the power to detect the effect of percutaneous PFO closure for treating patients with episodic migraine compared with medical therapy alone.
In the two studies including a total of 337 patients, 176 were randomized to PFO closure and 161 to medical treatment only. At 12 months, three of the four efficacy endpoints evaluated in the meta-analysis were significantly reduced in the PFO-closure group. These were mean reduction of monthly migraine days (–3.1 days vs. –1.9 days; P = .02), mean reduction of monthly migraine attacks (–2.0 vs. –1.4; P = .01), and number of patients who experienced complete cessation of migraine (9% vs. 0.7%; P < .001).
The responder rate, defined as more than a 50% reduction in migraine attacks, showed a trend towards an increase in the PFO-closure group but did not achieve statistical significance (38% vs. 29%; P = .13).
For the safety analysis, nine procedure-related and four device-related adverse events occurred in 245 patients who eventually received devices. All events were transient and resolved.
Better effect in patients with aura
Patients with migraine with aura, in particular frequent aura, had a significantly greater reduction in migraine days and a higher incidence of complete migraine cessation following PFO closure versus no closure, the authors reported.
In those without aura, PFO closure did not significantly reduce migraine days or improve complete headache cessation. However, some patients without aura did respond to PFO closure, which was statistically significant for reduction of migraine attacks (–2.0 vs. –1.0; P = .03).
“The interaction between the brain that is susceptible to migraine and the plethora of potential triggers is complex. A PFO may be the potential pathway for a variety of chemical triggers, such as serotonin from platelets, and although less frequent, some people with migraine without aura may trigger their migraine through this mechanism,” the researchers suggested. This hypothesis will be tested in the RELIEF trial, which is now being planned.
In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Robert J. Sommer, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, pointed out that the meta-analysis demonstrates benefit of PFO closure in the migraine population for the first time.
“Moreover, the investigators defined a population of patients who may benefit most from PFO closure, those with migraine with frequent aura, suggesting that these may be different physiologically than other migraine subtypes. The analysis also places the PRIMA and PREMIUM outcomes in the context of endpoints that are more practical and are more commonly assessed in current clinical trials,” the editorialists noted.
Many unanswered questions
But the editorialists highlighted several significant limitations of the analysis, including “pooling of patient cohorts, methods, and outcome measures that might not be entirely comparable,” which they say could have introduced bias.
They also pointed out that the underlying pathophysiological mechanism linking migraine symptoms to PFO remains unknown. They explain that the mechanism is thought to involve the right-to-left passage of systemic venous blood, with some component – which would normally be eliminated or reduced on passage through the pulmonary vasculature – reaching the cerebral circulation via the PFO in supranormal concentrations and acting as a trigger for migraine activity in patients with susceptible brains.
But not all patients with migraine who have PFO benefit from PFO closure, they noted, and therefore presumably have PFO-unrelated migraines. There is no verified way to distinguish between these two groups at present.
“Once we learn to identify the subset of migraine patients in whom PFOs are actually causal of headache symptoms, screening and treatment of PFO for migraine can become a reality,” they wrote.
Although the meta-analysis is a step in the right direction, “it is not a home run,” Dr. Ahmed elaborated. “This was a post hoc analysis of two studies, neither of which showed significant benefits on their primary endpoints. That weakens the findings somewhat.”
He added: “At present, PFO closure is not routinely recommended as a migraine treatment strategy as we haven’t been sure which patients are most likely to benefit. And while this meta-analysis suggests patients with aura may be more likely to benefit, one quarter of patients without aura in the PREMIUM trial responded to PFO closure, so it’s not just about aura.
“There are still many unanswered questions.
“I don’t think the new information from this meta-analysis is enough to persuade me to change my practice, but it is a small building block in the overall picture and suggests this may be a suitable strategy for some patients in future,” he concluded.
The study had no outside funding. Participant-level data were provided by Abbott. Several coauthors were on the steering committee for the PREMIUM or PRIMA trials. Dr. Ahmed reported receiving consulting fees from, Amgen, AbbVie, electroCore, and Eli Lilly; serving on advisory boards for Amgen and Supernus; serving as a speaker for AbbVie; and receiving funding for an investigator-initiated trial from Teva and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Brain connectivity patterns reliably identify ADHD
Functional brain connectivity patterns are a stable biomarker of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, new research suggests.
By applying a machine-learning approach to brain-imaging data, investigators were able to identify with 99% accuracy the adult study participants who had been diagnosed with ADHD in childhood.
“Even though the symptoms of ADHD may be less apparent in adulthood, the brain-wiring signature seems to be persistent,” study investigator Christopher McNorgan, PhD, of the department of psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo told this news organization.
The findings were published online Dec. 17, 2020, in Frontiers of Psychology.
Deep-learning neural networks
The researchers analyzed archived functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and behavioral data for 80 adults (mean age, 24 years; 64 male). Of these participants, 55 were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood and 25 were not.
The fMRI data were obtained during a response inhibition task that tested the individual’s ability to not respond automatically; for example, not saying “Simon Says” after someone else makes the comment.
The behavioral data included scores on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which is used to measure impulsivity and risk taking.
“Usually, but not always, people with ADHD make riskier choices on this task,” Dr. McNorgan noted.
The investigators measured the amount of interconnectedness among different brain regions during the response inhibition task, which was repeated four times.
Patterns of interconnectivity were then fed into a deep-learning neural network that learned which patterns belonged to the ADHD group vs. those without ADHD (control group) and which patterns belonged to the high vs. low scorers on the IGT.
Caveats, cautionary notes
“The trained models are then tested on brain patterns they had never seen before, and we found the models would make the correct ADHD diagnosis and could tell apart the high and low scorers on the IGT 99% of the time,” Dr. McNorgan reported.
“The trained classifiers make predictions by calculating probabilities, and the neural networks learned how each of the brain connections contributes towards the final classification probability. We identified the set of brain connections that had the greatest influence on these probability calculations,” he noted.
Because the network classified both ADHD diagnosis and gambling task performance, the researchers were able to distinguish between connections that predicted ADHD when gambling performance was poor, as is typical for patients with ADHD, and those predicting ADHD when gambling performance was uncharacteristically good.
While more work is needed, the findings have potential clinical relevance, Dr. McNorgan said.
“ADHD can be difficult to diagnose reliably. If expense wasn’t an issue, fMRI may be able to help make diagnosis more reliable and objective,” he added.
However, because individuals with ADHD have different behavioral profiles, such as scoring atypically well on the IGT, additional studies using this approach may help identify brain networks “that are more or less active in those with ADHD that show a particular diagnostic trait,” he said.
“This could help inform what treatments might be more effective for those individuals,” Dr. McNorgan said.
Of course, he added, “clinicians’ diagnostic expertise is still required, as I would not base an ADHD diagnosis solely on the results of a single brain scan.”
No cross-validation
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Vince Calhoun, PhD, neuroscientist and founding director of the Center for Translational Research in Neuroimaging and Data Science, Atlanta, a joint effort between Georgia State, Georgia Tech, and Emory University, noted some study limitations.
One cautionary note is that the investigators “appear to select relevant regions to include in the model based on activation to the task, then computed the predictions using the subset of regions that showed strong activation. The issue is this was done on the same data, so there was no cross-validation of this ‘feature selection’ step,” said Dr. Calhoun, who was not involved with the research. “This is a type of circularity which can lead to inflated accuracies,” he added.
Dr. Calhoun also noted that “multiple ADHD classification studies” have reported accuracies above 90%. In addition, there were only 80 participants in the current dataset.
“That’s relatively small for making strong claims about high accuracies as has been reported elsewhere,” he said.
Dr. McNorgan and Dr. Calhoun have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Functional brain connectivity patterns are a stable biomarker of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, new research suggests.
By applying a machine-learning approach to brain-imaging data, investigators were able to identify with 99% accuracy the adult study participants who had been diagnosed with ADHD in childhood.
“Even though the symptoms of ADHD may be less apparent in adulthood, the brain-wiring signature seems to be persistent,” study investigator Christopher McNorgan, PhD, of the department of psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo told this news organization.
The findings were published online Dec. 17, 2020, in Frontiers of Psychology.
Deep-learning neural networks
The researchers analyzed archived functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and behavioral data for 80 adults (mean age, 24 years; 64 male). Of these participants, 55 were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood and 25 were not.
The fMRI data were obtained during a response inhibition task that tested the individual’s ability to not respond automatically; for example, not saying “Simon Says” after someone else makes the comment.
The behavioral data included scores on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which is used to measure impulsivity and risk taking.
“Usually, but not always, people with ADHD make riskier choices on this task,” Dr. McNorgan noted.
The investigators measured the amount of interconnectedness among different brain regions during the response inhibition task, which was repeated four times.
Patterns of interconnectivity were then fed into a deep-learning neural network that learned which patterns belonged to the ADHD group vs. those without ADHD (control group) and which patterns belonged to the high vs. low scorers on the IGT.
Caveats, cautionary notes
“The trained models are then tested on brain patterns they had never seen before, and we found the models would make the correct ADHD diagnosis and could tell apart the high and low scorers on the IGT 99% of the time,” Dr. McNorgan reported.
“The trained classifiers make predictions by calculating probabilities, and the neural networks learned how each of the brain connections contributes towards the final classification probability. We identified the set of brain connections that had the greatest influence on these probability calculations,” he noted.
Because the network classified both ADHD diagnosis and gambling task performance, the researchers were able to distinguish between connections that predicted ADHD when gambling performance was poor, as is typical for patients with ADHD, and those predicting ADHD when gambling performance was uncharacteristically good.
While more work is needed, the findings have potential clinical relevance, Dr. McNorgan said.
“ADHD can be difficult to diagnose reliably. If expense wasn’t an issue, fMRI may be able to help make diagnosis more reliable and objective,” he added.
However, because individuals with ADHD have different behavioral profiles, such as scoring atypically well on the IGT, additional studies using this approach may help identify brain networks “that are more or less active in those with ADHD that show a particular diagnostic trait,” he said.
“This could help inform what treatments might be more effective for those individuals,” Dr. McNorgan said.
Of course, he added, “clinicians’ diagnostic expertise is still required, as I would not base an ADHD diagnosis solely on the results of a single brain scan.”
No cross-validation
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Vince Calhoun, PhD, neuroscientist and founding director of the Center for Translational Research in Neuroimaging and Data Science, Atlanta, a joint effort between Georgia State, Georgia Tech, and Emory University, noted some study limitations.
One cautionary note is that the investigators “appear to select relevant regions to include in the model based on activation to the task, then computed the predictions using the subset of regions that showed strong activation. The issue is this was done on the same data, so there was no cross-validation of this ‘feature selection’ step,” said Dr. Calhoun, who was not involved with the research. “This is a type of circularity which can lead to inflated accuracies,” he added.
Dr. Calhoun also noted that “multiple ADHD classification studies” have reported accuracies above 90%. In addition, there were only 80 participants in the current dataset.
“That’s relatively small for making strong claims about high accuracies as has been reported elsewhere,” he said.
Dr. McNorgan and Dr. Calhoun have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Functional brain connectivity patterns are a stable biomarker of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, new research suggests.
By applying a machine-learning approach to brain-imaging data, investigators were able to identify with 99% accuracy the adult study participants who had been diagnosed with ADHD in childhood.
“Even though the symptoms of ADHD may be less apparent in adulthood, the brain-wiring signature seems to be persistent,” study investigator Christopher McNorgan, PhD, of the department of psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo told this news organization.
The findings were published online Dec. 17, 2020, in Frontiers of Psychology.
Deep-learning neural networks
The researchers analyzed archived functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and behavioral data for 80 adults (mean age, 24 years; 64 male). Of these participants, 55 were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood and 25 were not.
The fMRI data were obtained during a response inhibition task that tested the individual’s ability to not respond automatically; for example, not saying “Simon Says” after someone else makes the comment.
The behavioral data included scores on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which is used to measure impulsivity and risk taking.
“Usually, but not always, people with ADHD make riskier choices on this task,” Dr. McNorgan noted.
The investigators measured the amount of interconnectedness among different brain regions during the response inhibition task, which was repeated four times.
Patterns of interconnectivity were then fed into a deep-learning neural network that learned which patterns belonged to the ADHD group vs. those without ADHD (control group) and which patterns belonged to the high vs. low scorers on the IGT.
Caveats, cautionary notes
“The trained models are then tested on brain patterns they had never seen before, and we found the models would make the correct ADHD diagnosis and could tell apart the high and low scorers on the IGT 99% of the time,” Dr. McNorgan reported.
“The trained classifiers make predictions by calculating probabilities, and the neural networks learned how each of the brain connections contributes towards the final classification probability. We identified the set of brain connections that had the greatest influence on these probability calculations,” he noted.
Because the network classified both ADHD diagnosis and gambling task performance, the researchers were able to distinguish between connections that predicted ADHD when gambling performance was poor, as is typical for patients with ADHD, and those predicting ADHD when gambling performance was uncharacteristically good.
While more work is needed, the findings have potential clinical relevance, Dr. McNorgan said.
“ADHD can be difficult to diagnose reliably. If expense wasn’t an issue, fMRI may be able to help make diagnosis more reliable and objective,” he added.
However, because individuals with ADHD have different behavioral profiles, such as scoring atypically well on the IGT, additional studies using this approach may help identify brain networks “that are more or less active in those with ADHD that show a particular diagnostic trait,” he said.
“This could help inform what treatments might be more effective for those individuals,” Dr. McNorgan said.
Of course, he added, “clinicians’ diagnostic expertise is still required, as I would not base an ADHD diagnosis solely on the results of a single brain scan.”
No cross-validation
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Vince Calhoun, PhD, neuroscientist and founding director of the Center for Translational Research in Neuroimaging and Data Science, Atlanta, a joint effort between Georgia State, Georgia Tech, and Emory University, noted some study limitations.
One cautionary note is that the investigators “appear to select relevant regions to include in the model based on activation to the task, then computed the predictions using the subset of regions that showed strong activation. The issue is this was done on the same data, so there was no cross-validation of this ‘feature selection’ step,” said Dr. Calhoun, who was not involved with the research. “This is a type of circularity which can lead to inflated accuracies,” he added.
Dr. Calhoun also noted that “multiple ADHD classification studies” have reported accuracies above 90%. In addition, there were only 80 participants in the current dataset.
“That’s relatively small for making strong claims about high accuracies as has been reported elsewhere,” he said.
Dr. McNorgan and Dr. Calhoun have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Child with yellow nodule
The characteristic orange-yellow color is the tip-off to the diagnosis of juvenile xanthogranuloma (JXG). It manifests as asymptomatic solitary or scattered papules or nodules, congenitally, or most commonly during the first year of life.
JXG is an unusual non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis that more commonly affects males. The etiology of JXG is unclear; it is presumed to be due to physical or infectious stimuli that produce a granulomatous histiocytic reaction. JXG typically manifests on the head, neck, upper extremities, and trunk. The appearance of JXG may be similar to that of Langerhans cell histiocytosis. If necessary, the diagnosis of JXG can be confirmed with a skin biopsy, which will reveal Touton-type giant cells and foamy histiocytes.
JXG is a benign and self-limiting disorder and spontaneously regresses within a few years. In rare cases, it can be systemic. If there are multiple lesions, relevant history, or physical exam features suggesting space-occupying lesions, imaging should be performed to rule out lesions in internal organs or structures. Treatment is indicated when there is systemic or symptomatic ocular involvement and may include surgical excision, radiotherapy, and/or systemic chemotherapy. In this case, the patient’s JXG management involved routine monitoring in anticipation of spontaneous resolution.
Image courtesy of John Durkin, MD, FAAD, Department of Dermatology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque. Text courtesy of Kerry Song, BS, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
Collie JS, Harper CD, Fillman EP. Juvenile Xanthogranuloma. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan. Accessed January 29, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526103/#_NBK526103_pubdet
The characteristic orange-yellow color is the tip-off to the diagnosis of juvenile xanthogranuloma (JXG). It manifests as asymptomatic solitary or scattered papules or nodules, congenitally, or most commonly during the first year of life.
JXG is an unusual non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis that more commonly affects males. The etiology of JXG is unclear; it is presumed to be due to physical or infectious stimuli that produce a granulomatous histiocytic reaction. JXG typically manifests on the head, neck, upper extremities, and trunk. The appearance of JXG may be similar to that of Langerhans cell histiocytosis. If necessary, the diagnosis of JXG can be confirmed with a skin biopsy, which will reveal Touton-type giant cells and foamy histiocytes.
JXG is a benign and self-limiting disorder and spontaneously regresses within a few years. In rare cases, it can be systemic. If there are multiple lesions, relevant history, or physical exam features suggesting space-occupying lesions, imaging should be performed to rule out lesions in internal organs or structures. Treatment is indicated when there is systemic or symptomatic ocular involvement and may include surgical excision, radiotherapy, and/or systemic chemotherapy. In this case, the patient’s JXG management involved routine monitoring in anticipation of spontaneous resolution.
Image courtesy of John Durkin, MD, FAAD, Department of Dermatology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque. Text courtesy of Kerry Song, BS, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
The characteristic orange-yellow color is the tip-off to the diagnosis of juvenile xanthogranuloma (JXG). It manifests as asymptomatic solitary or scattered papules or nodules, congenitally, or most commonly during the first year of life.
JXG is an unusual non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis that more commonly affects males. The etiology of JXG is unclear; it is presumed to be due to physical or infectious stimuli that produce a granulomatous histiocytic reaction. JXG typically manifests on the head, neck, upper extremities, and trunk. The appearance of JXG may be similar to that of Langerhans cell histiocytosis. If necessary, the diagnosis of JXG can be confirmed with a skin biopsy, which will reveal Touton-type giant cells and foamy histiocytes.
JXG is a benign and self-limiting disorder and spontaneously regresses within a few years. In rare cases, it can be systemic. If there are multiple lesions, relevant history, or physical exam features suggesting space-occupying lesions, imaging should be performed to rule out lesions in internal organs or structures. Treatment is indicated when there is systemic or symptomatic ocular involvement and may include surgical excision, radiotherapy, and/or systemic chemotherapy. In this case, the patient’s JXG management involved routine monitoring in anticipation of spontaneous resolution.
Image courtesy of John Durkin, MD, FAAD, Department of Dermatology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque. Text courtesy of Kerry Song, BS, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
Collie JS, Harper CD, Fillman EP. Juvenile Xanthogranuloma. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan. Accessed January 29, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526103/#_NBK526103_pubdet
Collie JS, Harper CD, Fillman EP. Juvenile Xanthogranuloma. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan. Accessed January 29, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526103/#_NBK526103_pubdet
