Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medication overuse headache (MOH), a secondary headache diagnosis, is a prevalent phenomenon that complicates headache diagnosis and treatment, increases the cost of care, and reduces quality of life. Effective abortive medication is essential for the headache sufferer; when an abortive is used too frequently, however, headache frequency increases—potentially beginning a cycle in which the patient then takes more medication to abort the headache. Over time, the patient suffers from an ever-­increasing number of headaches, takes even more abortive medication, and so on. In the presence of MOH, there is a reduction in pain response to preventive and abortive treatments; when medication overuse is eliminated, pain response improves.¹

Although MOH is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care. Since headache is a top complaint in primary care, however, and prevention is a major goal in family medicine, the opportunity for you to recognize, treat, and prevent MOH is significant. In fact, a randomized controlled trial showed that brief patient education about headache care and MOH provided by a primary care physician can lead to a significant reduction in headache frequency among patients with MOH.²

Although medication overuse headache is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care.

This article reviews the recognition and diagnosis of MOH, based on historical features and current criteria; addresses risk factors for abortive medication overuse and how to withdraw an offending agent; and explores the value of bridging and preventive therapies to reduce the overall frequency of headache.

IMAGE © ROY SCOTT

What defines MOH?

Typically, MOH is a chronification of a primary headache disorder. However, in patients with a history of migraine who are undergoing treatment for another chronic pain condition with an opioid or other analgesic, MOH can be induced.³ An increase in the frequency of headache raises the specter of a concomitant increase in the level of disability⁴; psychiatric comorbidity⁵; and more headache days, with time lost from school and work.

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, a validated instrument that helps the provider (1) measure the impact that headache has on a patient’s life and (2) follow treatment progress, also provides information to employers and insurance companies on treatment coverage and the need for work modification. The MIDAS score is 3 times higher in patients with MOH than in patients with episodic migraine.^6,7

The annual associated cost per person of MOH has been estimated at $4000, resulting in billions of dollars in associated costs⁸; most of these costs are related to absenteeism and disability. After detoxification for MOH, annual outpatient medication costs are reduced by approximately 24%.⁹

Efforts to solve a common problem create another

Headache affects nearly 50% of the general population worldwide,¹⁰ accounting for about 4% of primary care visits¹¹ and approximately 20% of outpatient neurology consultations.¹² Although inpatient stays for headache are approximately half the duration of the overall average hospital stay, headache accounts for 3% of admissions.¹³ According to the Global Burden of Disease study, tension-type headache, migraine, and MOH are the 3 most common headache disorders.¹⁰ Headache is the second leading cause of disability among people 15 to 49 years of age.¹⁰

Continue to: The prevalence of MOH...

The prevalence of MOH in the general population is 2%.^7,14,15 A population-based study showed that the rate of progression from episodic headache (< 15 d/mo) to chronic headache (≥ 15 d/mo) in the general population is 2.5% per year¹⁶; however, progression to chronic headache is 14% per year in patients with medication overuse. One-third of the general population with chronic migraine overuses symptomatic medication; in US headache clinics, roughly one-half of patients with chronic headache overuse acute medication.⁶

Definitions and diagnosis

MOH is a secondary headache diagnosis in the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) (TABLE 1),¹⁷ which lists diagnostic criteria for recognized headache disorders.

Terminology. MOH has also been called rebound headache, drug-induced headache, and transformed migraine, but these terms are outdated and are not formal diagnoses. Patients sometimes refer to substance-withdrawal headaches (not discussed in this article) as rebound headaches, so clarity is important when discussing headache with patients: namely, that MOH is an exacerbation of an existing headache condition caused by overuse of abortive headache medications, including analgesics, combination analgesics, triptans, barbiturates, and opioids.

The time it takes to develop medication overuse headache is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.

MOH was recognized in the early 1950s and fully differentiated as a diagnosis in 2005 in the second edition of the ICHD. The disorder is subcategorized by offending abortive agent (TABLE 2¹⁷) because the frequency of analgesic use required to develop MOH differs by agent.

Risk factors for MOH and chronification of a primary headache ­disorder. There are several risk factors for developing MOH, and others that contribute to increasing headache frequency in general (TABLE 3^5,14,18-23). Some risk factors are common to each. All are important to address because some are modifiable.

Continue to: Pathophysiology

Pathophysiology. The pathophysiology and psychology behind MOH are largely unknown. Physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes have been demonstrated in patients with MOH, both of which are reversible upon withdrawal of medication.²³ Genetic factors and changes in hormone and neurotransmitter levels are found in MOH patients; this is not the case in patients who have an episodic headache pattern only.²⁴

Presentation. Diagnostic criteria for MOH do not include clinical characteristics. Typically, the phenotype of MOH in a given patient is similar to the underlying primary headache²⁵—although this principle can be complicated to tease out because these medications can suppress some symptoms. Diagnosis of a primary headache disorder should be documented along with the diagnosis of MOH.

Medication overuse can exist without MOH: Not every patient who frequently uses an abortive medication develops MOH.

Treatment is multifaceted—and can become complex

Mainstays of treatment of MOH are education about the disorder and detoxification from the overused agent, although specific treatments can differ depending on the agent involved, the frequency and duration of its use, and a patient’s behavioral patterns and psychiatric comorbidities. Often, a daily medication to prevent headache is considered upon, or after, withdrawal of the offending agent. The timing of introducing a preventive might impact its effectiveness. Some refractory cases require more intensive therapy, including hospitalization at a specialized tertiary center.

But before we look at detoxification from an overused agent, it’s important to review one of the best strategies of all in combatting MOH.

Continue to: First and best strategy

Select an appropriate abortive to reduce the risk of MOH. With regard to specific acute headache medications, some nuances other than type of headache should be considered. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as abortive therapy by the American Headache Society for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost. NSAIDs are protective against development of MOH if a patient’s baseline headache frequency is < 10/mo; at a frequency of 10 to 14 d/mo, however, the risk of MOH increases when using an NSAID.⁶ A similar effect has been seen with triptans.¹⁶ Longer-acting NSAIDs, such as nabumetone and naproxen, have been proposed as less likely to cause MOH, and are even used as bridging therapy sometimes (as long as neither of these was the overused medication).²⁶

The time it takes to develop MOH is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.²⁷

Prospective cohort studies^6,16 have shown that barbiturates and opioids are more likely to induce MOH; for that reason, agents in these analgesic classes are almost universally avoided unless no other medically acceptable options exist. Using barbiturate-containing compounds or opioids > 4 d/mo exponentially increases the likelihood of MOH.

Promising preclinical data demonstrate that the gepant, or small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, class of medications used as abortive therapy does not induce medication overuse cutaneous allodynia.²⁸

Provide education. Primary prevention of MOH involves (1) increasing patients’ awareness of how to take medications appropriately and (2) restricting intake of over-the-counter abortive medications. Often, the expert recommendation is to limit abortives to approximately 2 d/wk because more frequent use places patients at risk of further increased use and subsequent MOH.

Continue to: A randomized controlled trial in Norway...

A randomized controlled trial in Norway compared outcomes in 2 groups of patients with MOH: One group was given advice on the disorder by a physician; the other group was not provided with advice. In the “business-as-usual” group, there was no significant improvement; however, when general practitioners provided simple advice (lasting roughly 9 minutes) about reducing abortive medication use to a safe level and cautioned patients that they would be “feeling worse before feeling better,” headache days were reduced by approximately 8 per month and medication days, by 16 per month.²

A subsequent, long-term follow-up study²⁹ of patients from the Norway trial² who had been given advice and education showed a relapse rate (ie, into overuse of headache medication) of only 8% and sustained reduction of headache days and medication use at 16 months.

Offer support and other nondrug interventions. A recent review of 3 studies²³ recommended that extra support for patients from a headache nurse, close follow-up, keeping an electronic diary that provides feedback, and undertaking a short course of psychotherapy can reduce medication overuse and prevent relapse.

If MOH develops, initiate withdrawal, introduce a preventive

Withdraw overused medication. Most current evidence suggests that withdrawal of the offending agent is the most effective factor in reducing headache days and improving quality of life. A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of (1) complete and immediate withdrawal of an abortive medication with (2) reducing its use (ie, limiting intake to 2 d/wk), on headache frequency, disability, and quality of life.³⁰ There was a reduction of headache days in both groups; however, reduction was much greater at 2 months in the complete withdrawal group than in the restricted intake group (respectively, a 41% and a 26% reduction in headache days per month). This effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months in both groups. The study confirmed the results of earlier research^2,15: Abrupt withdrawal leads to reversion to an episodic pattern at 2 to 6 months in approximately 40% to 60% of patients.

More studies are needed to determine the most appropriate treatment course for MOH; however, complete withdrawal of the causative drug is the most important intervention.

Continue to: Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment

Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment. Use of sodium valproate, in addition to medication overuse detoxification, led to a significant reduction in headache days and improvement in quality of life at 12 weeks but no difference after 24 weeks, compared with detoxification alone in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.³¹

A study of 61 patients showed a larger reduction (by 7.2 d/mo) in headache frequency with any preventive medication in addition to medication withdrawal, compared to withdrawal alone (by 4.1 d/mo) after 3 months; however, the relative benefit was gone at 6 months.³²

A study of 98 patients compared immediate and delayed initiation of preventive medication upon withdrawal of overused abortive medication.³³ Response was defined as a > 50% reduction in headache frequency and was similar in both groups; results showed a 28% response with immediate initiation of a preventive; a 23% response with delayed (ie, 2 months after withdrawal) initiation; and a 48% response in both groups at 12 months.

Collectively, these studies suggest that adding a preventive medication at the time of withdrawal has the potential to reduce headache frequency more quickly than withdrawal alone. However, after 3 to 6 months, the outcome of reduced headache frequency is the same whether or not a preventive medication is used—as long as the offending agent has been withdrawn.

Do preventives work without withdrawing overused medication? Patients with MOH often show little or no improvement with addition of a preventive medication only; their response to a preventive improves after withdrawal of the overused medication. Patients without previous headache improvement after addition of a preventive, who also did not improve 2 months after withdrawal, then demonstrated an overall reduction in headache by 26% when a preventive was reintroduced after withdrawal.²

Continue to: The research evidence for preventives

The research evidence for preventives. Medications for headache prevention have not been extensively evaluated specifically for treating MOH. Here is what’s known:

• Flunarizine, amitriptyline, and beta-blockers usually are ineffective for MOH.²⁴
• Results for topiramate are mixed: A small, double-blind, placebo-controlled chronic migraine study in Europe showed that, in a subgroup of patients with MOH, topiramate led to a small but significant reduction (3.5 d/mo) in headache frequency, compared to placebo.²⁷ A similar study done in the United States did not show a significant difference between the active-treatment and placebo groups.³⁴
• Findings regarding onabotulinumtoxinA are intriguing: In a posthoc analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA to treat chronic migraine, patients with MOH who did not undergo detoxification had an 8 d/mo greater reduction in headache, compared to placebo.³⁵ However, when compared to placebo in conjunction with detoxification, onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated no benefit.³⁶
• Newer CGRP antagonist and CGRP receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies are successful preventive medications that have demonstrated a reduction in acute medication use days per month and headache days per month³⁷; these compounds have not been compared to withdrawal alone.

Reducing the severity and duration of withdrawal symptoms

Withdrawal from overused abortive headache medications can lead to worsening headache, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, tachycardia, sleep disturbances, restlessness, anxiety, and nervousness. Symptoms usually last 2 to 10 days but can persist for as long as 4 weeks; duration of withdrawal symptoms varies with the medication that is being overused. In patients who have used a triptan, for example, mean duration of withdrawal is 4.1 days; ergotamine, 6.7 days; and NSAIDs, 9.5 days.²³ Tapered withdrawal is sometimes recommended with opioids and barbiturates to reduce withdrawal symptoms. It is unclear whether starting a preventive medication during withdrawal assists in reducing withdrawal symptoms.³⁸

Bridging therapy to reduce symptoms of withdrawal is often provided despite debatable utility. Available evidence does not favor one agent or method but suggests some strategies that could be helpful:

• A prednisone taper has a potential role during the first 6 days of withdrawal by reducing rebound headache and withdrawal symptoms³⁹; however, oral prednisolone has been shown to have no benefit.⁴⁰
• Alone, IV methylprednisolone seems not to be of benefit; however, in a retrospective study of 94 patients, IV methylprednisolone plus diazepam for 5 days led to a significant reduction in headache frequency and drug consumption that was sustained after 3 months.⁴¹
• Celecoxib was compared to prednisone over a 20-day course: a celecoxib dosage of 400 mg/d for the first 5 days, tapered by 100 mg every 5 days, and an oral prednisone dosage of 75 mg/d for the first 5 days, then tapered every 5 days. Patients taking celecoxib had lower headache intensity but there was no difference in headache frequency and acute medication intake between the groups.⁴²

Other strategies. Using antiemetics and NSAIDs to reduce withdrawal symptoms is widely practiced, but no placebo-­controlled trials have been conducted to support this strategy.

Reduce the risk of medication overuse headache by selecting an appropriate abortive; NSAIDs are recommended for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost.

Patients in withdrawal might be more likely to benefit from inpatient care if they have a severe comorbidity, such as opioid or barbiturate use; failure to respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapse after withdrawal.³⁸

Continue to: Cognitive behavioral therapy...

Cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, a headache diary, and biofeedback should be considered in every patient’s treatment strategy because a multidisciplinary approach increases adherence and leads to improvement in headache frequency and a decrease in disability and medication use.⁴³

Predictors of Tx success

A prospective cohort study determined that the rate of MOH relapse is 31% at 6 months, 41% at 1 year, and 45% at 4 years, with the highest risk of relapse during the first year.⁴⁴ Looking at the correlation between type of medication overused and relapse rate, the research indicates that

• triptans have the lowest risk of relapse,⁴⁴
• simple analgesics have a higher risk of relapse than triptans,^22,44 and
• opioids have the highest risk of relapse.²²

Where the data don’t agree. Data on combination analgesics and on ergots are conflicting.²² In addition, data on whether the primary type of headache predicts relapse rate conflict; however, migraine might predict a better outcome than tension-type headache.²²

To recap and expand: Management pearls

The major goals of headache management generally are to rule out secondary headache, reach a correct diagnosis, reduce overall headache frequency, and provide effective abortive medication. A large component of reducing headache frequency is addressing and treating medication overuse.

Seek to understand the nature of the patient’s headache disorder. Components of the history are key in identifying the underlying headache diagnosis and ruling out other, more concerning secondary headache diagnoses. The ICHD-3 is an excellent resource for treating headache disorders because the classification lists specific diagnostic criteria for all recognized headache diagnoses.

Continue to: Medication withdrawal...

Medication withdrawal—with or without preventive medication—should reduce the frequency of MOH in 2 or 3 months. If headache does not become less frequent, however, the headache diagnosis might need to be reconsidered. Minimizing the use of abortive medication is generally recommended, but reduction or withdrawal of these medications does not guarantee that patients will revert to an episodic pattern of headache.

Inpatient care of withdrawal might be beneficial when a patient has a severe comorbidity; does not respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapses after withdrawal.

Treating withdrawal symptoms is a reasonable approach in some patients, but evidence does not support routinely providing bridging therapy.

Apply preventives carefully. Abortive medication withdrawal should generally be completed before initiating preventive medication; however, over the short term, starting preventive therapy while withdrawing the overused medication could assist in reducing headache frequency rapidly. This strategy can put patients at risk of medication adverse effects and using the medications longer than necessary, yet might be reasonable in certain patients, given their comorbidities, risk of relapse, and physician and patient preference. A preventive medication for an individual patient should generally be chosen in line with recommendations of the American Academy of Neurology⁴⁵ and on the basis of the history and comorbidities.

Provide education, which is essential to lowering barriers to success. Patients with MOH must be counseled to understand that (1) a headache treatment that is supposed to be making them feel better is, in fact, making them feel worse and (2) they will get worse before they get better. Many patients are afraid to be without medication to use as needed. It is helpful to educate them on the different types of treatments (abortive, preventive); how MOH interferes with headache prophylaxis and medication efficacy; how MOH alters brain function (ie, aforementioned physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes²³); and that such change is reversible when medication is withdrawn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, for his support and editing assistance with the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Allison Crain, MD, 2927 N 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85013; [email protected].

Medication overuse headache (MOH), a secondary headache diagnosis, is a prevalent phenomenon that complicates headache diagnosis and treatment, increases the cost of care, and reduces quality of life. Effective abortive medication is essential for the headache sufferer; when an abortive is used too frequently, however, headache frequency increases—potentially beginning a cycle in which the patient then takes more medication to abort the headache. Over time, the patient suffers from an ever-­increasing number of headaches, takes even more abortive medication, and so on. In the presence of MOH, there is a reduction in pain response to preventive and abortive treatments; when medication overuse is eliminated, pain response improves.¹

Although MOH is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care. Since headache is a top complaint in primary care, however, and prevention is a major goal in family medicine, the opportunity for you to recognize, treat, and prevent MOH is significant. In fact, a randomized controlled trial showed that brief patient education about headache care and MOH provided by a primary care physician can lead to a significant reduction in headache frequency among patients with MOH.²

Although medication overuse headache is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care.

This article reviews the recognition and diagnosis of MOH, based on historical features and current criteria; addresses risk factors for abortive medication overuse and how to withdraw an offending agent; and explores the value of bridging and preventive therapies to reduce the overall frequency of headache.

IMAGE © ROY SCOTT

What defines MOH?

Typically, MOH is a chronification of a primary headache disorder. However, in patients with a history of migraine who are undergoing treatment for another chronic pain condition with an opioid or other analgesic, MOH can be induced.³ An increase in the frequency of headache raises the specter of a concomitant increase in the level of disability⁴; psychiatric comorbidity⁵; and more headache days, with time lost from school and work.

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, a validated instrument that helps the provider (1) measure the impact that headache has on a patient’s life and (2) follow treatment progress, also provides information to employers and insurance companies on treatment coverage and the need for work modification. The MIDAS score is 3 times higher in patients with MOH than in patients with episodic migraine.^6,7

The annual associated cost per person of MOH has been estimated at $4000, resulting in billions of dollars in associated costs⁸; most of these costs are related to absenteeism and disability. After detoxification for MOH, annual outpatient medication costs are reduced by approximately 24%.⁹

Efforts to solve a common problem create another

Headache affects nearly 50% of the general population worldwide,¹⁰ accounting for about 4% of primary care visits¹¹ and approximately 20% of outpatient neurology consultations.¹² Although inpatient stays for headache are approximately half the duration of the overall average hospital stay, headache accounts for 3% of admissions.¹³ According to the Global Burden of Disease study, tension-type headache, migraine, and MOH are the 3 most common headache disorders.¹⁰ Headache is the second leading cause of disability among people 15 to 49 years of age.¹⁰

Continue to: The prevalence of MOH...

The prevalence of MOH in the general population is 2%.^7,14,15 A population-based study showed that the rate of progression from episodic headache (< 15 d/mo) to chronic headache (≥ 15 d/mo) in the general population is 2.5% per year¹⁶; however, progression to chronic headache is 14% per year in patients with medication overuse. One-third of the general population with chronic migraine overuses symptomatic medication; in US headache clinics, roughly one-half of patients with chronic headache overuse acute medication.⁶

Definitions and diagnosis

MOH is a secondary headache diagnosis in the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) (TABLE 1),¹⁷ which lists diagnostic criteria for recognized headache disorders.

Terminology. MOH has also been called rebound headache, drug-induced headache, and transformed migraine, but these terms are outdated and are not formal diagnoses. Patients sometimes refer to substance-withdrawal headaches (not discussed in this article) as rebound headaches, so clarity is important when discussing headache with patients: namely, that MOH is an exacerbation of an existing headache condition caused by overuse of abortive headache medications, including analgesics, combination analgesics, triptans, barbiturates, and opioids.

The time it takes to develop medication overuse headache is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.

MOH was recognized in the early 1950s and fully differentiated as a diagnosis in 2005 in the second edition of the ICHD. The disorder is subcategorized by offending abortive agent (TABLE 2¹⁷) because the frequency of analgesic use required to develop MOH differs by agent.

Risk factors for MOH and chronification of a primary headache ­disorder. There are several risk factors for developing MOH, and others that contribute to increasing headache frequency in general (TABLE 3^5,14,18-23). Some risk factors are common to each. All are important to address because some are modifiable.

Continue to: Pathophysiology

Pathophysiology. The pathophysiology and psychology behind MOH are largely unknown. Physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes have been demonstrated in patients with MOH, both of which are reversible upon withdrawal of medication.²³ Genetic factors and changes in hormone and neurotransmitter levels are found in MOH patients; this is not the case in patients who have an episodic headache pattern only.²⁴

Presentation. Diagnostic criteria for MOH do not include clinical characteristics. Typically, the phenotype of MOH in a given patient is similar to the underlying primary headache²⁵—although this principle can be complicated to tease out because these medications can suppress some symptoms. Diagnosis of a primary headache disorder should be documented along with the diagnosis of MOH.

Medication overuse can exist without MOH: Not every patient who frequently uses an abortive medication develops MOH.

Treatment is multifaceted—and can become complex

Mainstays of treatment of MOH are education about the disorder and detoxification from the overused agent, although specific treatments can differ depending on the agent involved, the frequency and duration of its use, and a patient’s behavioral patterns and psychiatric comorbidities. Often, a daily medication to prevent headache is considered upon, or after, withdrawal of the offending agent. The timing of introducing a preventive might impact its effectiveness. Some refractory cases require more intensive therapy, including hospitalization at a specialized tertiary center.

But before we look at detoxification from an overused agent, it’s important to review one of the best strategies of all in combatting MOH.

Continue to: First and best strategy

Select an appropriate abortive to reduce the risk of MOH. With regard to specific acute headache medications, some nuances other than type of headache should be considered. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as abortive therapy by the American Headache Society for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost. NSAIDs are protective against development of MOH if a patient’s baseline headache frequency is < 10/mo; at a frequency of 10 to 14 d/mo, however, the risk of MOH increases when using an NSAID.⁶ A similar effect has been seen with triptans.¹⁶ Longer-acting NSAIDs, such as nabumetone and naproxen, have been proposed as less likely to cause MOH, and are even used as bridging therapy sometimes (as long as neither of these was the overused medication).²⁶

The time it takes to develop MOH is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.²⁷

Prospective cohort studies^6,16 have shown that barbiturates and opioids are more likely to induce MOH; for that reason, agents in these analgesic classes are almost universally avoided unless no other medically acceptable options exist. Using barbiturate-containing compounds or opioids > 4 d/mo exponentially increases the likelihood of MOH.

Promising preclinical data demonstrate that the gepant, or small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, class of medications used as abortive therapy does not induce medication overuse cutaneous allodynia.²⁸

Provide education. Primary prevention of MOH involves (1) increasing patients’ awareness of how to take medications appropriately and (2) restricting intake of over-the-counter abortive medications. Often, the expert recommendation is to limit abortives to approximately 2 d/wk because more frequent use places patients at risk of further increased use and subsequent MOH.

Continue to: A randomized controlled trial in Norway...

A randomized controlled trial in Norway compared outcomes in 2 groups of patients with MOH: One group was given advice on the disorder by a physician; the other group was not provided with advice. In the “business-as-usual” group, there was no significant improvement; however, when general practitioners provided simple advice (lasting roughly 9 minutes) about reducing abortive medication use to a safe level and cautioned patients that they would be “feeling worse before feeling better,” headache days were reduced by approximately 8 per month and medication days, by 16 per month.²

A subsequent, long-term follow-up study²⁹ of patients from the Norway trial² who had been given advice and education showed a relapse rate (ie, into overuse of headache medication) of only 8% and sustained reduction of headache days and medication use at 16 months.

Offer support and other nondrug interventions. A recent review of 3 studies²³ recommended that extra support for patients from a headache nurse, close follow-up, keeping an electronic diary that provides feedback, and undertaking a short course of psychotherapy can reduce medication overuse and prevent relapse.

If MOH develops, initiate withdrawal, introduce a preventive

Withdraw overused medication. Most current evidence suggests that withdrawal of the offending agent is the most effective factor in reducing headache days and improving quality of life. A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of (1) complete and immediate withdrawal of an abortive medication with (2) reducing its use (ie, limiting intake to 2 d/wk), on headache frequency, disability, and quality of life.³⁰ There was a reduction of headache days in both groups; however, reduction was much greater at 2 months in the complete withdrawal group than in the restricted intake group (respectively, a 41% and a 26% reduction in headache days per month). This effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months in both groups. The study confirmed the results of earlier research^2,15: Abrupt withdrawal leads to reversion to an episodic pattern at 2 to 6 months in approximately 40% to 60% of patients.

More studies are needed to determine the most appropriate treatment course for MOH; however, complete withdrawal of the causative drug is the most important intervention.

Continue to: Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment

Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment. Use of sodium valproate, in addition to medication overuse detoxification, led to a significant reduction in headache days and improvement in quality of life at 12 weeks but no difference after 24 weeks, compared with detoxification alone in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.³¹

A study of 61 patients showed a larger reduction (by 7.2 d/mo) in headache frequency with any preventive medication in addition to medication withdrawal, compared to withdrawal alone (by 4.1 d/mo) after 3 months; however, the relative benefit was gone at 6 months.³²

A study of 98 patients compared immediate and delayed initiation of preventive medication upon withdrawal of overused abortive medication.³³ Response was defined as a > 50% reduction in headache frequency and was similar in both groups; results showed a 28% response with immediate initiation of a preventive; a 23% response with delayed (ie, 2 months after withdrawal) initiation; and a 48% response in both groups at 12 months.

Collectively, these studies suggest that adding a preventive medication at the time of withdrawal has the potential to reduce headache frequency more quickly than withdrawal alone. However, after 3 to 6 months, the outcome of reduced headache frequency is the same whether or not a preventive medication is used—as long as the offending agent has been withdrawn.

Do preventives work without withdrawing overused medication? Patients with MOH often show little or no improvement with addition of a preventive medication only; their response to a preventive improves after withdrawal of the overused medication. Patients without previous headache improvement after addition of a preventive, who also did not improve 2 months after withdrawal, then demonstrated an overall reduction in headache by 26% when a preventive was reintroduced after withdrawal.²

Continue to: The research evidence for preventives

The research evidence for preventives. Medications for headache prevention have not been extensively evaluated specifically for treating MOH. Here is what’s known:

• Flunarizine, amitriptyline, and beta-blockers usually are ineffective for MOH.²⁴
• Results for topiramate are mixed: A small, double-blind, placebo-controlled chronic migraine study in Europe showed that, in a subgroup of patients with MOH, topiramate led to a small but significant reduction (3.5 d/mo) in headache frequency, compared to placebo.²⁷ A similar study done in the United States did not show a significant difference between the active-treatment and placebo groups.³⁴
• Findings regarding onabotulinumtoxinA are intriguing: In a posthoc analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA to treat chronic migraine, patients with MOH who did not undergo detoxification had an 8 d/mo greater reduction in headache, compared to placebo.³⁵ However, when compared to placebo in conjunction with detoxification, onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated no benefit.³⁶
• Newer CGRP antagonist and CGRP receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies are successful preventive medications that have demonstrated a reduction in acute medication use days per month and headache days per month³⁷; these compounds have not been compared to withdrawal alone.

Reducing the severity and duration of withdrawal symptoms

Withdrawal from overused abortive headache medications can lead to worsening headache, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, tachycardia, sleep disturbances, restlessness, anxiety, and nervousness. Symptoms usually last 2 to 10 days but can persist for as long as 4 weeks; duration of withdrawal symptoms varies with the medication that is being overused. In patients who have used a triptan, for example, mean duration of withdrawal is 4.1 days; ergotamine, 6.7 days; and NSAIDs, 9.5 days.²³ Tapered withdrawal is sometimes recommended with opioids and barbiturates to reduce withdrawal symptoms. It is unclear whether starting a preventive medication during withdrawal assists in reducing withdrawal symptoms.³⁸

Bridging therapy to reduce symptoms of withdrawal is often provided despite debatable utility. Available evidence does not favor one agent or method but suggests some strategies that could be helpful:

• A prednisone taper has a potential role during the first 6 days of withdrawal by reducing rebound headache and withdrawal symptoms³⁹; however, oral prednisolone has been shown to have no benefit.⁴⁰
• Alone, IV methylprednisolone seems not to be of benefit; however, in a retrospective study of 94 patients, IV methylprednisolone plus diazepam for 5 days led to a significant reduction in headache frequency and drug consumption that was sustained after 3 months.⁴¹
• Celecoxib was compared to prednisone over a 20-day course: a celecoxib dosage of 400 mg/d for the first 5 days, tapered by 100 mg every 5 days, and an oral prednisone dosage of 75 mg/d for the first 5 days, then tapered every 5 days. Patients taking celecoxib had lower headache intensity but there was no difference in headache frequency and acute medication intake between the groups.⁴²

Other strategies. Using antiemetics and NSAIDs to reduce withdrawal symptoms is widely practiced, but no placebo-­controlled trials have been conducted to support this strategy.

Reduce the risk of medication overuse headache by selecting an appropriate abortive; NSAIDs are recommended for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost.

Patients in withdrawal might be more likely to benefit from inpatient care if they have a severe comorbidity, such as opioid or barbiturate use; failure to respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapse after withdrawal.³⁸

Continue to: Cognitive behavioral therapy...

Cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, a headache diary, and biofeedback should be considered in every patient’s treatment strategy because a multidisciplinary approach increases adherence and leads to improvement in headache frequency and a decrease in disability and medication use.⁴³

Predictors of Tx success

A prospective cohort study determined that the rate of MOH relapse is 31% at 6 months, 41% at 1 year, and 45% at 4 years, with the highest risk of relapse during the first year.⁴⁴ Looking at the correlation between type of medication overused and relapse rate, the research indicates that

• triptans have the lowest risk of relapse,⁴⁴
• simple analgesics have a higher risk of relapse than triptans,^22,44 and
• opioids have the highest risk of relapse.²²

Where the data don’t agree. Data on combination analgesics and on ergots are conflicting.²² In addition, data on whether the primary type of headache predicts relapse rate conflict; however, migraine might predict a better outcome than tension-type headache.²²

To recap and expand: Management pearls

The major goals of headache management generally are to rule out secondary headache, reach a correct diagnosis, reduce overall headache frequency, and provide effective abortive medication. A large component of reducing headache frequency is addressing and treating medication overuse.

Seek to understand the nature of the patient’s headache disorder. Components of the history are key in identifying the underlying headache diagnosis and ruling out other, more concerning secondary headache diagnoses. The ICHD-3 is an excellent resource for treating headache disorders because the classification lists specific diagnostic criteria for all recognized headache diagnoses.

Continue to: Medication withdrawal...

Medication withdrawal—with or without preventive medication—should reduce the frequency of MOH in 2 or 3 months. If headache does not become less frequent, however, the headache diagnosis might need to be reconsidered. Minimizing the use of abortive medication is generally recommended, but reduction or withdrawal of these medications does not guarantee that patients will revert to an episodic pattern of headache.

Inpatient care of withdrawal might be beneficial when a patient has a severe comorbidity; does not respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapses after withdrawal.

Treating withdrawal symptoms is a reasonable approach in some patients, but evidence does not support routinely providing bridging therapy.

Apply preventives carefully. Abortive medication withdrawal should generally be completed before initiating preventive medication; however, over the short term, starting preventive therapy while withdrawing the overused medication could assist in reducing headache frequency rapidly. This strategy can put patients at risk of medication adverse effects and using the medications longer than necessary, yet might be reasonable in certain patients, given their comorbidities, risk of relapse, and physician and patient preference. A preventive medication for an individual patient should generally be chosen in line with recommendations of the American Academy of Neurology⁴⁵ and on the basis of the history and comorbidities.

Provide education, which is essential to lowering barriers to success. Patients with MOH must be counseled to understand that (1) a headache treatment that is supposed to be making them feel better is, in fact, making them feel worse and (2) they will get worse before they get better. Many patients are afraid to be without medication to use as needed. It is helpful to educate them on the different types of treatments (abortive, preventive); how MOH interferes with headache prophylaxis and medication efficacy; how MOH alters brain function (ie, aforementioned physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes²³); and that such change is reversible when medication is withdrawn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, for his support and editing assistance with the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Allison Crain, MD, 2927 N 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85013; [email protected].

Medication overuse headache (MOH), a secondary headache diagnosis, is a prevalent phenomenon that complicates headache diagnosis and treatment, increases the cost of care, and reduces quality of life. Effective abortive medication is essential for the headache sufferer; when an abortive is used too frequently, however, headache frequency increases—potentially beginning a cycle in which the patient then takes more medication to abort the headache. Over time, the patient suffers from an ever-­increasing number of headaches, takes even more abortive medication, and so on. In the presence of MOH, there is a reduction in pain response to preventive and abortive treatments; when medication overuse is eliminated, pain response improves.¹

Although MOH is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care. Since headache is a top complaint in primary care, however, and prevention is a major goal in family medicine, the opportunity for you to recognize, treat, and prevent MOH is significant. In fact, a randomized controlled trial showed that brief patient education about headache care and MOH provided by a primary care physician can lead to a significant reduction in headache frequency among patients with MOH.²

Although medication overuse headache is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care.

This article reviews the recognition and diagnosis of MOH, based on historical features and current criteria; addresses risk factors for abortive medication overuse and how to withdraw an offending agent; and explores the value of bridging and preventive therapies to reduce the overall frequency of headache.

IMAGE © ROY SCOTT

What defines MOH?

Typically, MOH is a chronification of a primary headache disorder. However, in patients with a history of migraine who are undergoing treatment for another chronic pain condition with an opioid or other analgesic, MOH can be induced.³ An increase in the frequency of headache raises the specter of a concomitant increase in the level of disability⁴; psychiatric comorbidity⁵; and more headache days, with time lost from school and work.

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, a validated instrument that helps the provider (1) measure the impact that headache has on a patient’s life and (2) follow treatment progress, also provides information to employers and insurance companies on treatment coverage and the need for work modification. The MIDAS score is 3 times higher in patients with MOH than in patients with episodic migraine.^6,7

The annual associated cost per person of MOH has been estimated at $4000, resulting in billions of dollars in associated costs⁸; most of these costs are related to absenteeism and disability. After detoxification for MOH, annual outpatient medication costs are reduced by approximately 24%.⁹

Efforts to solve a common problem create another

Headache affects nearly 50% of the general population worldwide,¹⁰ accounting for about 4% of primary care visits¹¹ and approximately 20% of outpatient neurology consultations.¹² Although inpatient stays for headache are approximately half the duration of the overall average hospital stay, headache accounts for 3% of admissions.¹³ According to the Global Burden of Disease study, tension-type headache, migraine, and MOH are the 3 most common headache disorders.¹⁰ Headache is the second leading cause of disability among people 15 to 49 years of age.¹⁰

Continue to: The prevalence of MOH...

The prevalence of MOH in the general population is 2%.^7,14,15 A population-based study showed that the rate of progression from episodic headache (< 15 d/mo) to chronic headache (≥ 15 d/mo) in the general population is 2.5% per year¹⁶; however, progression to chronic headache is 14% per year in patients with medication overuse. One-third of the general population with chronic migraine overuses symptomatic medication; in US headache clinics, roughly one-half of patients with chronic headache overuse acute medication.⁶

Definitions and diagnosis

MOH is a secondary headache diagnosis in the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) (TABLE 1),¹⁷ which lists diagnostic criteria for recognized headache disorders.

Terminology. MOH has also been called rebound headache, drug-induced headache, and transformed migraine, but these terms are outdated and are not formal diagnoses. Patients sometimes refer to substance-withdrawal headaches (not discussed in this article) as rebound headaches, so clarity is important when discussing headache with patients: namely, that MOH is an exacerbation of an existing headache condition caused by overuse of abortive headache medications, including analgesics, combination analgesics, triptans, barbiturates, and opioids.

The time it takes to develop medication overuse headache is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.

MOH was recognized in the early 1950s and fully differentiated as a diagnosis in 2005 in the second edition of the ICHD. The disorder is subcategorized by offending abortive agent (TABLE 2¹⁷) because the frequency of analgesic use required to develop MOH differs by agent.

Risk factors for MOH and chronification of a primary headache ­disorder. There are several risk factors for developing MOH, and others that contribute to increasing headache frequency in general (TABLE 3^5,14,18-23). Some risk factors are common to each. All are important to address because some are modifiable.

Continue to: Pathophysiology

Pathophysiology. The pathophysiology and psychology behind MOH are largely unknown. Physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes have been demonstrated in patients with MOH, both of which are reversible upon withdrawal of medication.²³ Genetic factors and changes in hormone and neurotransmitter levels are found in MOH patients; this is not the case in patients who have an episodic headache pattern only.²⁴

Presentation. Diagnostic criteria for MOH do not include clinical characteristics. Typically, the phenotype of MOH in a given patient is similar to the underlying primary headache²⁵—although this principle can be complicated to tease out because these medications can suppress some symptoms. Diagnosis of a primary headache disorder should be documented along with the diagnosis of MOH.

Medication overuse can exist without MOH: Not every patient who frequently uses an abortive medication develops MOH.

Treatment is multifaceted—and can become complex

Mainstays of treatment of MOH are education about the disorder and detoxification from the overused agent, although specific treatments can differ depending on the agent involved, the frequency and duration of its use, and a patient’s behavioral patterns and psychiatric comorbidities. Often, a daily medication to prevent headache is considered upon, or after, withdrawal of the offending agent. The timing of introducing a preventive might impact its effectiveness. Some refractory cases require more intensive therapy, including hospitalization at a specialized tertiary center.

But before we look at detoxification from an overused agent, it’s important to review one of the best strategies of all in combatting MOH.

Continue to: First and best strategy

Select an appropriate abortive to reduce the risk of MOH. With regard to specific acute headache medications, some nuances other than type of headache should be considered. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as abortive therapy by the American Headache Society for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost. NSAIDs are protective against development of MOH if a patient’s baseline headache frequency is < 10/mo; at a frequency of 10 to 14 d/mo, however, the risk of MOH increases when using an NSAID.⁶ A similar effect has been seen with triptans.¹⁶ Longer-acting NSAIDs, such as nabumetone and naproxen, have been proposed as less likely to cause MOH, and are even used as bridging therapy sometimes (as long as neither of these was the overused medication).²⁶

The time it takes to develop MOH is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.²⁷

Prospective cohort studies^6,16 have shown that barbiturates and opioids are more likely to induce MOH; for that reason, agents in these analgesic classes are almost universally avoided unless no other medically acceptable options exist. Using barbiturate-containing compounds or opioids > 4 d/mo exponentially increases the likelihood of MOH.

Promising preclinical data demonstrate that the gepant, or small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, class of medications used as abortive therapy does not induce medication overuse cutaneous allodynia.²⁸

Provide education. Primary prevention of MOH involves (1) increasing patients’ awareness of how to take medications appropriately and (2) restricting intake of over-the-counter abortive medications. Often, the expert recommendation is to limit abortives to approximately 2 d/wk because more frequent use places patients at risk of further increased use and subsequent MOH.

Continue to: A randomized controlled trial in Norway...

A randomized controlled trial in Norway compared outcomes in 2 groups of patients with MOH: One group was given advice on the disorder by a physician; the other group was not provided with advice. In the “business-as-usual” group, there was no significant improvement; however, when general practitioners provided simple advice (lasting roughly 9 minutes) about reducing abortive medication use to a safe level and cautioned patients that they would be “feeling worse before feeling better,” headache days were reduced by approximately 8 per month and medication days, by 16 per month.²

A subsequent, long-term follow-up study²⁹ of patients from the Norway trial² who had been given advice and education showed a relapse rate (ie, into overuse of headache medication) of only 8% and sustained reduction of headache days and medication use at 16 months.

Offer support and other nondrug interventions. A recent review of 3 studies²³ recommended that extra support for patients from a headache nurse, close follow-up, keeping an electronic diary that provides feedback, and undertaking a short course of psychotherapy can reduce medication overuse and prevent relapse.

If MOH develops, initiate withdrawal, introduce a preventive

Withdraw overused medication. Most current evidence suggests that withdrawal of the offending agent is the most effective factor in reducing headache days and improving quality of life. A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of (1) complete and immediate withdrawal of an abortive medication with (2) reducing its use (ie, limiting intake to 2 d/wk), on headache frequency, disability, and quality of life.³⁰ There was a reduction of headache days in both groups; however, reduction was much greater at 2 months in the complete withdrawal group than in the restricted intake group (respectively, a 41% and a 26% reduction in headache days per month). This effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months in both groups. The study confirmed the results of earlier research^2,15: Abrupt withdrawal leads to reversion to an episodic pattern at 2 to 6 months in approximately 40% to 60% of patients.

More studies are needed to determine the most appropriate treatment course for MOH; however, complete withdrawal of the causative drug is the most important intervention.

Continue to: Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment

Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment. Use of sodium valproate, in addition to medication overuse detoxification, led to a significant reduction in headache days and improvement in quality of life at 12 weeks but no difference after 24 weeks, compared with detoxification alone in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.³¹

A study of 61 patients showed a larger reduction (by 7.2 d/mo) in headache frequency with any preventive medication in addition to medication withdrawal, compared to withdrawal alone (by 4.1 d/mo) after 3 months; however, the relative benefit was gone at 6 months.³²

A study of 98 patients compared immediate and delayed initiation of preventive medication upon withdrawal of overused abortive medication.³³ Response was defined as a > 50% reduction in headache frequency and was similar in both groups; results showed a 28% response with immediate initiation of a preventive; a 23% response with delayed (ie, 2 months after withdrawal) initiation; and a 48% response in both groups at 12 months.

Collectively, these studies suggest that adding a preventive medication at the time of withdrawal has the potential to reduce headache frequency more quickly than withdrawal alone. However, after 3 to 6 months, the outcome of reduced headache frequency is the same whether or not a preventive medication is used—as long as the offending agent has been withdrawn.

Do preventives work without withdrawing overused medication? Patients with MOH often show little or no improvement with addition of a preventive medication only; their response to a preventive improves after withdrawal of the overused medication. Patients without previous headache improvement after addition of a preventive, who also did not improve 2 months after withdrawal, then demonstrated an overall reduction in headache by 26% when a preventive was reintroduced after withdrawal.²

Continue to: The research evidence for preventives

The research evidence for preventives. Medications for headache prevention have not been extensively evaluated specifically for treating MOH. Here is what’s known:

• Flunarizine, amitriptyline, and beta-blockers usually are ineffective for MOH.²⁴
• Results for topiramate are mixed: A small, double-blind, placebo-controlled chronic migraine study in Europe showed that, in a subgroup of patients with MOH, topiramate led to a small but significant reduction (3.5 d/mo) in headache frequency, compared to placebo.²⁷ A similar study done in the United States did not show a significant difference between the active-treatment and placebo groups.³⁴
• Findings regarding onabotulinumtoxinA are intriguing: In a posthoc analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA to treat chronic migraine, patients with MOH who did not undergo detoxification had an 8 d/mo greater reduction in headache, compared to placebo.³⁵ However, when compared to placebo in conjunction with detoxification, onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated no benefit.³⁶
• Newer CGRP antagonist and CGRP receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies are successful preventive medications that have demonstrated a reduction in acute medication use days per month and headache days per month³⁷; these compounds have not been compared to withdrawal alone.

Reducing the severity and duration of withdrawal symptoms

Withdrawal from overused abortive headache medications can lead to worsening headache, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, tachycardia, sleep disturbances, restlessness, anxiety, and nervousness. Symptoms usually last 2 to 10 days but can persist for as long as 4 weeks; duration of withdrawal symptoms varies with the medication that is being overused. In patients who have used a triptan, for example, mean duration of withdrawal is 4.1 days; ergotamine, 6.7 days; and NSAIDs, 9.5 days.²³ Tapered withdrawal is sometimes recommended with opioids and barbiturates to reduce withdrawal symptoms. It is unclear whether starting a preventive medication during withdrawal assists in reducing withdrawal symptoms.³⁸

Bridging therapy to reduce symptoms of withdrawal is often provided despite debatable utility. Available evidence does not favor one agent or method but suggests some strategies that could be helpful:

• A prednisone taper has a potential role during the first 6 days of withdrawal by reducing rebound headache and withdrawal symptoms³⁹; however, oral prednisolone has been shown to have no benefit.⁴⁰
• Alone, IV methylprednisolone seems not to be of benefit; however, in a retrospective study of 94 patients, IV methylprednisolone plus diazepam for 5 days led to a significant reduction in headache frequency and drug consumption that was sustained after 3 months.⁴¹
• Celecoxib was compared to prednisone over a 20-day course: a celecoxib dosage of 400 mg/d for the first 5 days, tapered by 100 mg every 5 days, and an oral prednisone dosage of 75 mg/d for the first 5 days, then tapered every 5 days. Patients taking celecoxib had lower headache intensity but there was no difference in headache frequency and acute medication intake between the groups.⁴²

Other strategies. Using antiemetics and NSAIDs to reduce withdrawal symptoms is widely practiced, but no placebo-­controlled trials have been conducted to support this strategy.

Reduce the risk of medication overuse headache by selecting an appropriate abortive; NSAIDs are recommended for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost.

Patients in withdrawal might be more likely to benefit from inpatient care if they have a severe comorbidity, such as opioid or barbiturate use; failure to respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapse after withdrawal.³⁸

Continue to: Cognitive behavioral therapy...

Cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, a headache diary, and biofeedback should be considered in every patient’s treatment strategy because a multidisciplinary approach increases adherence and leads to improvement in headache frequency and a decrease in disability and medication use.⁴³

Predictors of Tx success

A prospective cohort study determined that the rate of MOH relapse is 31% at 6 months, 41% at 1 year, and 45% at 4 years, with the highest risk of relapse during the first year.⁴⁴ Looking at the correlation between type of medication overused and relapse rate, the research indicates that

• triptans have the lowest risk of relapse,⁴⁴
• simple analgesics have a higher risk of relapse than triptans,^22,44 and
• opioids have the highest risk of relapse.²²

Where the data don’t agree. Data on combination analgesics and on ergots are conflicting.²² In addition, data on whether the primary type of headache predicts relapse rate conflict; however, migraine might predict a better outcome than tension-type headache.²²

To recap and expand: Management pearls

The major goals of headache management generally are to rule out secondary headache, reach a correct diagnosis, reduce overall headache frequency, and provide effective abortive medication. A large component of reducing headache frequency is addressing and treating medication overuse.

Seek to understand the nature of the patient’s headache disorder. Components of the history are key in identifying the underlying headache diagnosis and ruling out other, more concerning secondary headache diagnoses. The ICHD-3 is an excellent resource for treating headache disorders because the classification lists specific diagnostic criteria for all recognized headache diagnoses.

Continue to: Medication withdrawal...

Medication withdrawal—with or without preventive medication—should reduce the frequency of MOH in 2 or 3 months. If headache does not become less frequent, however, the headache diagnosis might need to be reconsidered. Minimizing the use of abortive medication is generally recommended, but reduction or withdrawal of these medications does not guarantee that patients will revert to an episodic pattern of headache.

Inpatient care of withdrawal might be beneficial when a patient has a severe comorbidity; does not respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapses after withdrawal.

Treating withdrawal symptoms is a reasonable approach in some patients, but evidence does not support routinely providing bridging therapy.

Apply preventives carefully. Abortive medication withdrawal should generally be completed before initiating preventive medication; however, over the short term, starting preventive therapy while withdrawing the overused medication could assist in reducing headache frequency rapidly. This strategy can put patients at risk of medication adverse effects and using the medications longer than necessary, yet might be reasonable in certain patients, given their comorbidities, risk of relapse, and physician and patient preference. A preventive medication for an individual patient should generally be chosen in line with recommendations of the American Academy of Neurology⁴⁵ and on the basis of the history and comorbidities.

Provide education, which is essential to lowering barriers to success. Patients with MOH must be counseled to understand that (1) a headache treatment that is supposed to be making them feel better is, in fact, making them feel worse and (2) they will get worse before they get better. Many patients are afraid to be without medication to use as needed. It is helpful to educate them on the different types of treatments (abortive, preventive); how MOH interferes with headache prophylaxis and medication efficacy; how MOH alters brain function (ie, aforementioned physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes²³); and that such change is reversible when medication is withdrawn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, for his support and editing assistance with the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Allison Crain, MD, 2927 N 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85013; [email protected].

Peripartum maternal oxygen supplementation does not yield a clinically relevant improvement in umbilical artery gas pH or other neonatal outcomes, reported Nandini Raghuraman, MD, MS, of the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, and her associates.

In a meta-analysis of 16 studies identified between Feb. 18 and April 3, 2020, the investigators sought to determine whether maternal oxygen supplementation during delivery leads to improved measures in umbilical artery (UA) gas and neonatal outcomes. Using data from randomized clinical trials, they compared peripartum oxygen supplementation with room air and examined the link between oxygen delivery during regular labor or planned cesarean delivery (CD) with UA gas measures and other neonatal outcomes.

Altogether, 1,078 patients were randomized to the oxygen group or the room air group. UA pH remained similar between the two groups even after the researchers factored in risk of bias, use of low-flow devices, or FIO₂ below 60%, noted the authors. Oxygen supplementation also appeared to reduce rates of UA pH that were less than 7.2 and increase UA PaO₂ relative to room air during scheduled cesarean deliveries, they added.
 

Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was found

Although marginally lower one-minute Apgar scores were observed in infants whose mothers received oxygen during cesarean delivery, the mean difference between oxygen and room air was less than a point and there were no other statistically significant differences in any secondary outcomes, the authors said. Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was noted across most of the study outcomes.

It is important to note that results pooled from all the studies reviewed indicated an increase in UA PaO₂ but no notable differences in UA pH when oxygen was used. Citing multiple studies included in the review, the authors observed that UA PaO₂ is a “poor estimator of neonatal morbidity” because, when evaluated in cord blood gas, it represents dissolved oxygen and is not an accurate indication of how much oxygen is bound to hemoglobin. For this reason, dissolved oxygen content by itself is not an indication of hypoxia or subpar tissue oxygenation.

“Prolonged tissue hypoxia leads to anaerobic metabolism, resulting in decreased pH, which is why UA pH ultimately serves as a better marker for prediction of neonatal morbidity. An intervention that increases the PaO₂ without concomitantly increasing the pH has limited clinical benefit, particularly because hyperoxemia is associated with production of free radicals and oxidative cell damage in adults and neonates,” they explained.
 

With unproven benefits and potential for risk of harm, prolonged oxygen use should be limited

“A large, adequately powered trial is needed to investigate the effect of maternal oxygen supplementation in response to fetal heart rate tracings on short- and long-term neonatal morbidity,” the authors suggested. For the time being, they cautioned limiting prolonged oxygen use since the benefits are unproven and there is a potential risk of harm.

In a separate interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, FACOG, Emory University, Atlanta, noted, “The use of maternal supplemental oxygen with the intent of improving fetal oxygenation is a common clinical practice. Previous studies on maternal oxygen supplementation during labor have yielded conflicting results; however, there is growing literature suggesting that maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygenation may not provide clinically significant benefit and there may even be potential harm to mother and baby.

“Unique to this meta-analysis is evaluation of maternal oxygen supplementation in the presence or absence of labor, hypothesizing that placental oxygen transfer may be affected by regular uterine contractions. The pooled results suggest that the use of maternal supplemental oxygenation does not result in clinically relevant fetal oxygenation in the presence or absence of labor when compared to room air. A limitation of this meta-analysis is that the use of oxygen in response to nonreassuring fetal tracing was not assessed, the most common clinical indication for maternal oxygen supplementation.

“This study further challenges the practice of maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygen and highlights that we have much to learn about the impact of this practice. More research is needed to assess optimal duration of oxygen supplementation, safety and efficacy of oxygen supplementation, appropriate clinical indications for oxygen supplementation, as well as the long-term neonatal outcomes of in utero hyperoxygenation.“

Dr. Raghuraman reported receiving multiple grants and acknowledged multiple funding sources. Her colleagues and Dr. Krishna had no conflicts of interest to report.

Peripartum maternal oxygen supplementation does not yield a clinically relevant improvement in umbilical artery gas pH or other neonatal outcomes, reported Nandini Raghuraman, MD, MS, of the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, and her associates.

In a meta-analysis of 16 studies identified between Feb. 18 and April 3, 2020, the investigators sought to determine whether maternal oxygen supplementation during delivery leads to improved measures in umbilical artery (UA) gas and neonatal outcomes. Using data from randomized clinical trials, they compared peripartum oxygen supplementation with room air and examined the link between oxygen delivery during regular labor or planned cesarean delivery (CD) with UA gas measures and other neonatal outcomes.

Altogether, 1,078 patients were randomized to the oxygen group or the room air group. UA pH remained similar between the two groups even after the researchers factored in risk of bias, use of low-flow devices, or FIO₂ below 60%, noted the authors. Oxygen supplementation also appeared to reduce rates of UA pH that were less than 7.2 and increase UA PaO₂ relative to room air during scheduled cesarean deliveries, they added.
 

Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was found

Although marginally lower one-minute Apgar scores were observed in infants whose mothers received oxygen during cesarean delivery, the mean difference between oxygen and room air was less than a point and there were no other statistically significant differences in any secondary outcomes, the authors said. Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was noted across most of the study outcomes.

It is important to note that results pooled from all the studies reviewed indicated an increase in UA PaO₂ but no notable differences in UA pH when oxygen was used. Citing multiple studies included in the review, the authors observed that UA PaO₂ is a “poor estimator of neonatal morbidity” because, when evaluated in cord blood gas, it represents dissolved oxygen and is not an accurate indication of how much oxygen is bound to hemoglobin. For this reason, dissolved oxygen content by itself is not an indication of hypoxia or subpar tissue oxygenation.

“Prolonged tissue hypoxia leads to anaerobic metabolism, resulting in decreased pH, which is why UA pH ultimately serves as a better marker for prediction of neonatal morbidity. An intervention that increases the PaO₂ without concomitantly increasing the pH has limited clinical benefit, particularly because hyperoxemia is associated with production of free radicals and oxidative cell damage in adults and neonates,” they explained.
 

With unproven benefits and potential for risk of harm, prolonged oxygen use should be limited

“A large, adequately powered trial is needed to investigate the effect of maternal oxygen supplementation in response to fetal heart rate tracings on short- and long-term neonatal morbidity,” the authors suggested. For the time being, they cautioned limiting prolonged oxygen use since the benefits are unproven and there is a potential risk of harm.

In a separate interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, FACOG, Emory University, Atlanta, noted, “The use of maternal supplemental oxygen with the intent of improving fetal oxygenation is a common clinical practice. Previous studies on maternal oxygen supplementation during labor have yielded conflicting results; however, there is growing literature suggesting that maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygenation may not provide clinically significant benefit and there may even be potential harm to mother and baby.

“Unique to this meta-analysis is evaluation of maternal oxygen supplementation in the presence or absence of labor, hypothesizing that placental oxygen transfer may be affected by regular uterine contractions. The pooled results suggest that the use of maternal supplemental oxygenation does not result in clinically relevant fetal oxygenation in the presence or absence of labor when compared to room air. A limitation of this meta-analysis is that the use of oxygen in response to nonreassuring fetal tracing was not assessed, the most common clinical indication for maternal oxygen supplementation.

“This study further challenges the practice of maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygen and highlights that we have much to learn about the impact of this practice. More research is needed to assess optimal duration of oxygen supplementation, safety and efficacy of oxygen supplementation, appropriate clinical indications for oxygen supplementation, as well as the long-term neonatal outcomes of in utero hyperoxygenation.“

Dr. Raghuraman reported receiving multiple grants and acknowledged multiple funding sources. Her colleagues and Dr. Krishna had no conflicts of interest to report.

Peripartum maternal oxygen supplementation does not yield a clinically relevant improvement in umbilical artery gas pH or other neonatal outcomes, reported Nandini Raghuraman, MD, MS, of the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, and her associates.

In a meta-analysis of 16 studies identified between Feb. 18 and April 3, 2020, the investigators sought to determine whether maternal oxygen supplementation during delivery leads to improved measures in umbilical artery (UA) gas and neonatal outcomes. Using data from randomized clinical trials, they compared peripartum oxygen supplementation with room air and examined the link between oxygen delivery during regular labor or planned cesarean delivery (CD) with UA gas measures and other neonatal outcomes.

Altogether, 1,078 patients were randomized to the oxygen group or the room air group. UA pH remained similar between the two groups even after the researchers factored in risk of bias, use of low-flow devices, or FIO₂ below 60%, noted the authors. Oxygen supplementation also appeared to reduce rates of UA pH that were less than 7.2 and increase UA PaO₂ relative to room air during scheduled cesarean deliveries, they added.
 

Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was found

Although marginally lower one-minute Apgar scores were observed in infants whose mothers received oxygen during cesarean delivery, the mean difference between oxygen and room air was less than a point and there were no other statistically significant differences in any secondary outcomes, the authors said. Considerable interstudy heterogeneity was noted across most of the study outcomes.

It is important to note that results pooled from all the studies reviewed indicated an increase in UA PaO₂ but no notable differences in UA pH when oxygen was used. Citing multiple studies included in the review, the authors observed that UA PaO₂ is a “poor estimator of neonatal morbidity” because, when evaluated in cord blood gas, it represents dissolved oxygen and is not an accurate indication of how much oxygen is bound to hemoglobin. For this reason, dissolved oxygen content by itself is not an indication of hypoxia or subpar tissue oxygenation.

“Prolonged tissue hypoxia leads to anaerobic metabolism, resulting in decreased pH, which is why UA pH ultimately serves as a better marker for prediction of neonatal morbidity. An intervention that increases the PaO₂ without concomitantly increasing the pH has limited clinical benefit, particularly because hyperoxemia is associated with production of free radicals and oxidative cell damage in adults and neonates,” they explained.
 

With unproven benefits and potential for risk of harm, prolonged oxygen use should be limited

“A large, adequately powered trial is needed to investigate the effect of maternal oxygen supplementation in response to fetal heart rate tracings on short- and long-term neonatal morbidity,” the authors suggested. For the time being, they cautioned limiting prolonged oxygen use since the benefits are unproven and there is a potential risk of harm.

In a separate interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, FACOG, Emory University, Atlanta, noted, “The use of maternal supplemental oxygen with the intent of improving fetal oxygenation is a common clinical practice. Previous studies on maternal oxygen supplementation during labor have yielded conflicting results; however, there is growing literature suggesting that maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygenation may not provide clinically significant benefit and there may even be potential harm to mother and baby.

“Unique to this meta-analysis is evaluation of maternal oxygen supplementation in the presence or absence of labor, hypothesizing that placental oxygen transfer may be affected by regular uterine contractions. The pooled results suggest that the use of maternal supplemental oxygenation does not result in clinically relevant fetal oxygenation in the presence or absence of labor when compared to room air. A limitation of this meta-analysis is that the use of oxygen in response to nonreassuring fetal tracing was not assessed, the most common clinical indication for maternal oxygen supplementation.

“This study further challenges the practice of maternal intrapartum supplemental oxygen and highlights that we have much to learn about the impact of this practice. More research is needed to assess optimal duration of oxygen supplementation, safety and efficacy of oxygen supplementation, appropriate clinical indications for oxygen supplementation, as well as the long-term neonatal outcomes of in utero hyperoxygenation.“

Dr. Raghuraman reported receiving multiple grants and acknowledged multiple funding sources. Her colleagues and Dr. Krishna had no conflicts of interest to report.

Most patients with active chronic prurigo nodularis are not satisfied with their treatment, according to a large European survey.

The eye-opening results of the 406-patient, 12-country European patient survey indicate “high levels of disbelief in currently available treatment options and an overall dissatisfaction with treatment,” Manuel P. Pereira, MD, PhD, said in presenting the findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Only 5.3% of patients pronounced themselves “very satisfied” with their treatment. Another 28% were “rather satisfied.”

“Remarkably, almost 10% of patients were not being treated for prurigo despite having active disease,” said Dr. Pereira, a dermatologist at the Center for Chronic Pruritus at University Hospital Münster (Germany).

When survey participants were asked to identify their most important unmet treatment needs, 79.5% named improvement of itch, 57.2% sought improvement in skin lesions, and 30.5% wanted better sleep.

The most widely used treatments were emollients, prescribed in 84.5% of patients; topical steroids, in 55.7%; antihistamines, 55.2%; and phototherapy, 42.1%. Far fewer patients were on more potent medications: Cyclosporine, systemic corticosteroids, or other immunosuppressants were prescribed for 21.9% of patients; gabapentin and related compounds in 17%; and topical immunomodulators in 8.6%. Twenty-three percent of patients were on antidepressants.

None of the available treatment options, all of which are off label, received high marks from patients. For example, only 1 in 10 patients on antihistamines during the last 6 months rated the drugs as effective. Topical immunomodulators were deemed effective by 1.1% of patients with active prurigo nodularis; gabapentinoids by 3.1%; phototherapy by 9.9%; and antidepressants were rated as effective for the chronic skin disease by only 2.3% of patients. The top-rated therapies were topical steroids, deemed effective by 12.8% of patients; systemic immunosuppressants, favored by 12.2%; and emollients, deemed effective by 10.5% of patients, even though more than 80% of survey participants were using them.

Dr. Pereira said the survey results highlight a pressing need for guidelines aimed at improving clinical care for patients with chronic prurigo nodularis. The first-ever such guidelines on the diagnosis and management of this debilitating disease, developed by Dr. Pereira and other members of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI), were recently published in the journal Itch. The new guidelines advocate a multimodal treatment approach incorporating a combination of topical and systemic therapies.

At present, there is no approved treatment for prurigo nodularis. Given the unmet need, however, the pace of research has quickened. Innovative potential treatments in the developmental pipeline include Janus kinase inhibitors, topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, systemic opioid receptor modulators, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists.

The patient survey was funded by the EADV and carried out by the EADV’s Pruritus Task Force as part of the European Prurigo Project. Dr. Pereira reported receiving research funding from the EADV and the German Research Foundation. He is a paid speaker for AbbVie, Galderma, Menlo Therapeutics (now VYNE Therapeutics), Novartis, and Trevi.

[email protected]

Most patients with active chronic prurigo nodularis are not satisfied with their treatment, according to a large European survey.

The eye-opening results of the 406-patient, 12-country European patient survey indicate “high levels of disbelief in currently available treatment options and an overall dissatisfaction with treatment,” Manuel P. Pereira, MD, PhD, said in presenting the findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Only 5.3% of patients pronounced themselves “very satisfied” with their treatment. Another 28% were “rather satisfied.”

“Remarkably, almost 10% of patients were not being treated for prurigo despite having active disease,” said Dr. Pereira, a dermatologist at the Center for Chronic Pruritus at University Hospital Münster (Germany).

When survey participants were asked to identify their most important unmet treatment needs, 79.5% named improvement of itch, 57.2% sought improvement in skin lesions, and 30.5% wanted better sleep.

The most widely used treatments were emollients, prescribed in 84.5% of patients; topical steroids, in 55.7%; antihistamines, 55.2%; and phototherapy, 42.1%. Far fewer patients were on more potent medications: Cyclosporine, systemic corticosteroids, or other immunosuppressants were prescribed for 21.9% of patients; gabapentin and related compounds in 17%; and topical immunomodulators in 8.6%. Twenty-three percent of patients were on antidepressants.

None of the available treatment options, all of which are off label, received high marks from patients. For example, only 1 in 10 patients on antihistamines during the last 6 months rated the drugs as effective. Topical immunomodulators were deemed effective by 1.1% of patients with active prurigo nodularis; gabapentinoids by 3.1%; phototherapy by 9.9%; and antidepressants were rated as effective for the chronic skin disease by only 2.3% of patients. The top-rated therapies were topical steroids, deemed effective by 12.8% of patients; systemic immunosuppressants, favored by 12.2%; and emollients, deemed effective by 10.5% of patients, even though more than 80% of survey participants were using them.

Dr. Pereira said the survey results highlight a pressing need for guidelines aimed at improving clinical care for patients with chronic prurigo nodularis. The first-ever such guidelines on the diagnosis and management of this debilitating disease, developed by Dr. Pereira and other members of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI), were recently published in the journal Itch. The new guidelines advocate a multimodal treatment approach incorporating a combination of topical and systemic therapies.

At present, there is no approved treatment for prurigo nodularis. Given the unmet need, however, the pace of research has quickened. Innovative potential treatments in the developmental pipeline include Janus kinase inhibitors, topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, systemic opioid receptor modulators, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists.

The patient survey was funded by the EADV and carried out by the EADV’s Pruritus Task Force as part of the European Prurigo Project. Dr. Pereira reported receiving research funding from the EADV and the German Research Foundation. He is a paid speaker for AbbVie, Galderma, Menlo Therapeutics (now VYNE Therapeutics), Novartis, and Trevi.

[email protected]

Most patients with active chronic prurigo nodularis are not satisfied with their treatment, according to a large European survey.

The eye-opening results of the 406-patient, 12-country European patient survey indicate “high levels of disbelief in currently available treatment options and an overall dissatisfaction with treatment,” Manuel P. Pereira, MD, PhD, said in presenting the findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Only 5.3% of patients pronounced themselves “very satisfied” with their treatment. Another 28% were “rather satisfied.”

“Remarkably, almost 10% of patients were not being treated for prurigo despite having active disease,” said Dr. Pereira, a dermatologist at the Center for Chronic Pruritus at University Hospital Münster (Germany).

When survey participants were asked to identify their most important unmet treatment needs, 79.5% named improvement of itch, 57.2% sought improvement in skin lesions, and 30.5% wanted better sleep.

The most widely used treatments were emollients, prescribed in 84.5% of patients; topical steroids, in 55.7%; antihistamines, 55.2%; and phototherapy, 42.1%. Far fewer patients were on more potent medications: Cyclosporine, systemic corticosteroids, or other immunosuppressants were prescribed for 21.9% of patients; gabapentin and related compounds in 17%; and topical immunomodulators in 8.6%. Twenty-three percent of patients were on antidepressants.

None of the available treatment options, all of which are off label, received high marks from patients. For example, only 1 in 10 patients on antihistamines during the last 6 months rated the drugs as effective. Topical immunomodulators were deemed effective by 1.1% of patients with active prurigo nodularis; gabapentinoids by 3.1%; phototherapy by 9.9%; and antidepressants were rated as effective for the chronic skin disease by only 2.3% of patients. The top-rated therapies were topical steroids, deemed effective by 12.8% of patients; systemic immunosuppressants, favored by 12.2%; and emollients, deemed effective by 10.5% of patients, even though more than 80% of survey participants were using them.

Dr. Pereira said the survey results highlight a pressing need for guidelines aimed at improving clinical care for patients with chronic prurigo nodularis. The first-ever such guidelines on the diagnosis and management of this debilitating disease, developed by Dr. Pereira and other members of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI), were recently published in the journal Itch. The new guidelines advocate a multimodal treatment approach incorporating a combination of topical and systemic therapies.

At present, there is no approved treatment for prurigo nodularis. Given the unmet need, however, the pace of research has quickened. Innovative potential treatments in the developmental pipeline include Janus kinase inhibitors, topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, systemic opioid receptor modulators, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists.

The patient survey was funded by the EADV and carried out by the EADV’s Pruritus Task Force as part of the European Prurigo Project. Dr. Pereira reported receiving research funding from the EADV and the German Research Foundation. He is a paid speaker for AbbVie, Galderma, Menlo Therapeutics (now VYNE Therapeutics), Novartis, and Trevi.

[email protected]

Background: Currently the recommended duration of antibiotic therapy for native joint bacterial arthritis is 3-6 weeks based on expert opinion.

Study design: Prospective, unblinded, randomized, noninferiority.

Setting: Single center in Geneva.

Synopsis: In total, 154 patients were randomized to either 2 weeks or 4 weeks of antibiotic regimen selected in consultation with infectious disease specialists after surgical drainage of native joint bacterial arthritis.

The study population was 38% women with a median age of 51 years. Sites of infection were majority hand and wrist arthritis (64%). The most frequent pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (31%) with no methicillin-resistant strains. There was a low incidence of patients with bacteremia (4%) and chronic immune compromise (10%). Antibiotic regimen varied with 13 different initial intravenous regimens and 11 different oral regimens.

The primary study outcome was rate of recurrent infection within 2 years, which was low with only one recurrence in the 2-week arm and two recurrences in the 4-week arm. This difference was well within the 10% noninferiority margin selected by the authors.

The study was underpowered for nonhand and nonwrist cases, limiting generalizability.

Bottom line: Consider a shorter duration of antibiotic therapy after surgical drainage for native joint bacterial arthritis of the hand and wrist in an otherwise healthy patient.

Citation: Gjika E et al. Two weeks versus four weeks of antibiotic therapy after surgical drainage for native joint bacterial arthritis: a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug;78(8):1114-21.

Dr. Zarookian is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland and Stephens Memorial Hospital in Norway, Maine.

Background: Currently the recommended duration of antibiotic therapy for native joint bacterial arthritis is 3-6 weeks based on expert opinion.

Study design: Prospective, unblinded, randomized, noninferiority.

Setting: Single center in Geneva.

Synopsis: In total, 154 patients were randomized to either 2 weeks or 4 weeks of antibiotic regimen selected in consultation with infectious disease specialists after surgical drainage of native joint bacterial arthritis.

The study population was 38% women with a median age of 51 years. Sites of infection were majority hand and wrist arthritis (64%). The most frequent pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (31%) with no methicillin-resistant strains. There was a low incidence of patients with bacteremia (4%) and chronic immune compromise (10%). Antibiotic regimen varied with 13 different initial intravenous regimens and 11 different oral regimens.

The primary study outcome was rate of recurrent infection within 2 years, which was low with only one recurrence in the 2-week arm and two recurrences in the 4-week arm. This difference was well within the 10% noninferiority margin selected by the authors.

The study was underpowered for nonhand and nonwrist cases, limiting generalizability.

Bottom line: Consider a shorter duration of antibiotic therapy after surgical drainage for native joint bacterial arthritis of the hand and wrist in an otherwise healthy patient.

Citation: Gjika E et al. Two weeks versus four weeks of antibiotic therapy after surgical drainage for native joint bacterial arthritis: a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug;78(8):1114-21.

Dr. Zarookian is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland and Stephens Memorial Hospital in Norway, Maine.

Background: Currently the recommended duration of antibiotic therapy for native joint bacterial arthritis is 3-6 weeks based on expert opinion.

Study design: Prospective, unblinded, randomized, noninferiority.

Setting: Single center in Geneva.

Synopsis: In total, 154 patients were randomized to either 2 weeks or 4 weeks of antibiotic regimen selected in consultation with infectious disease specialists after surgical drainage of native joint bacterial arthritis.

The study population was 38% women with a median age of 51 years. Sites of infection were majority hand and wrist arthritis (64%). The most frequent pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus (31%) with no methicillin-resistant strains. There was a low incidence of patients with bacteremia (4%) and chronic immune compromise (10%). Antibiotic regimen varied with 13 different initial intravenous regimens and 11 different oral regimens.

The primary study outcome was rate of recurrent infection within 2 years, which was low with only one recurrence in the 2-week arm and two recurrences in the 4-week arm. This difference was well within the 10% noninferiority margin selected by the authors.

The study was underpowered for nonhand and nonwrist cases, limiting generalizability.

Bottom line: Consider a shorter duration of antibiotic therapy after surgical drainage for native joint bacterial arthritis of the hand and wrist in an otherwise healthy patient.

Citation: Gjika E et al. Two weeks versus four weeks of antibiotic therapy after surgical drainage for native joint bacterial arthritis: a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug;78(8):1114-21.

Dr. Zarookian is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland and Stephens Memorial Hospital in Norway, Maine.

In addition to sharing this handout (see PDF link) with your patients, Dr. Gupta also recommends advising them to watch the video Hand-washing Steps Using the WHO Technique, which is available at https://youtu.be/IisgnbMfKvI

In addition to sharing this handout (see PDF link) with your patients, Dr. Gupta also recommends advising them to watch the video Hand-washing Steps Using the WHO Technique, which is available at https://youtu.be/IisgnbMfKvI

In addition to sharing this handout (see PDF link) with your patients, Dr. Gupta also recommends advising them to watch the video Hand-washing Steps Using the WHO Technique, which is available at https://youtu.be/IisgnbMfKvI

Evidence on emerging treatments for COVID-19 has been incomplete, often disappointing, and rapidly changing. The concept of a practice-changing press release is as novel as the coronavirus. The pandemic has created an interdependent set of inpatient challenges: keeping up with evolving science and operationalizing clinical workflows, technology, and therapeutics to adapt what we are learning. 

At Dell Medical School, we have created a Therapeutics and Informatics Committee to put evidence into practice in real-time, and below is a brief framework of what we have learned to date:

The COVID-19 disease course can be broken down into 3 stages, and workup and interventions should be targeted to those stages.^1–3

Stage 1 is the viral phase following a median 5-day pre-symptomatic phase from exposure; this is indistinguishable from an influenza-like illness with the typical fever, cough, GI symptoms, and the more specific anosmia, ageusia, and orthostasis.

Stage 2 is the pulmonary phase where patients develop COVID-19 pneumonia and will have diffuse chest infiltrates on imaging. This stage usually represents the tail end of the viral phase prior to recovery, but for the ~15% of patients who present to the hospital needing admission because of hypoxemia (the definition of severe COVID-19, typically 5-7 days from symptom onset) this phase is characterized by elevated inflammatory markers and an exuberant host-immune response.

Stage 3 is the dreaded thrombo-inflammatory phase, which is a late manifestation usually >10 days from symptom onset and appears to be independent of viral replication. The morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 is likely a result of diffuse microthrombosis, and critical disease should no longer be thought of as a “cytokine storm,” but as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Unlike sepsis, the predominant pathology is not vasodilation and shock, but a hypercoagulable state with diffuse endothelial damage.^4,5

Workup on presentation to the hospital should focus on identifying which phase of illness the patient is in, based on timing of symptom onset, inflammatory markers, and end-organ damage. CBC, CMP, D-dimer, troponin, and CRP are likely sufficient baseline labs in addition to a chest X-ray. There are many risk stratification tools, but to date, the 4C Mortality 4C Deterioration Scores are recommended due to their large derivation cohort and reliance on only 8 practical variables.⁶

Remdesivir and convalescent plasma (CVP) disrupt viral replication in stages 1 and 2 of the illness. Remdesivir has shown efficacy reducing hospital length of stay and a small trend towards decreasing mortality, especially if given within 10 days of symptom onset, although its effectiveness in general use is very small, if it exists at all.^7,8 CVP efficacy has been disappointing and should not be the standard of care: multiple RCTs do not show any clinical benefit, although the Mayo Clinic registry data suggests that high-titer CVP given within 3 days from diagnosis decreases mortality compared to low-titer plasma.^9-11 Monoclonal antibodies are theoretically “supercharged” high-titer CVP, but are approved for outpatient use only. Trials for hospitalized patients requiring oxygen were stopped due to futility. By the time the patient is hospitalized, it is probably too late in the disease course for CVP or monoclonal antibodies to be effective.

Dexamethasone is the only treatment with a proven mortality benefit. The RECOVERY trial showed the greatest mortality benefit (number needed to treat [NNT] of 8) in mechanically ventilated patients > 7 days from symptom onset. While there is a benefit to patients requiring any oxygen (NNT of 35), early administration to patients in the viral phase is associated with higher mortality as corticosteroids can reduce viral clearance.¹² Corticosteroids should therefore be targeted to a therapeutic window to reduce the dysregulated host immune response and treat ARDS in phases 2 and 3; earlier is not necessarily better.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) increases linearly with disease severity (one metanalysis showing a rate of 24% in the ICU¹³) and autopsy studies demonstrate diffuse microthrombosis even when VTE was not suspected⁵. Observational studies have shown VTE pharmacoprophylaxis reduces mortality, but the optimal agent, timing, and intensity of regimens is not yet clear.^14-15 A recent press release from the NIH reported that full dose prophylactic anticoagulation in moderately ill patients reduced disease progression and trended toward lower mortality. Interestingly, for critically ill patients requiring high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or mechanical ventilation, intensified anticoagulation regiments had potential harm, and enrollment was stopped in this cohort.¹⁶ This announcement is a hopeful sign that intensified anticoagulation regimens can prevent thrombo-inflammation, but until the data of multiple ongoing trials is published it remains expert opinion only.

The most important treatment remains delivering oxygen with fidelity, correcting the much-observed “silent” or “happy hypoxemic.”¹⁷ Given the high mortality associated with mechanical ventilation and that hypoxemia can be out of proportion to respiratory distress, arbitrary thresholds should not be used to decide when to intubate and instead should evaluate work of breathing, hypercapnia, mentation, or progression of end-organ damage rather than a single cutoff.¹⁸ High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can correct severe hypoxemia in addition to self-proning, and while there is scant outcomes data for this strategy, it has been adopted widely as ICU capacity is strained nationally. A ventilator can add PEEP for alveolar recruitment or perform the work of breathing for a patient, but a patient will receive 100% FiO2 whether it is delivered through the nares on HFNC or 10 inches lower by an endotracheal tube.

In the absence of a single therapeutic cure or breakthrough, caring for a COVID-19 patient requires the hospital system to instead do a thousand things conscientiously and consistently. This is supportive care: most patients will get better with time and attentive evaluation for end-organ complications like myocarditis, encephalopathy, or pressure ulcers. It requires nursing to patient ratios that allows for this type of vigilance, with shared protocols, order sets, and close communication among team members that provides this support. The treatment of COVID-19 continues to evolve, but as we confront rising hospital volumes nationally, it is important to standardize care for patients throughout each of the 3 stages of illness until we find that single breakthrough.

Dr. Brode is a practicing internal medicine physician at Dell Seton Medical Center and assistant professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at Dell Medical School, both in Austin, Texas. He is a clinician educator who emphasizes knowing the patient as a person first, evidence-based diagnosis, and comprehensive care for the patients who are most vulnerable. This article is part of a series originally published in The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

References

1. Cummings MJ, et al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet. 2020 June 6;395(10239):1763-1770. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31189-2.

2. Oudkerk M, et al. Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of thromboembolic complications in COVID-19: Report of the National Institute for Public Health of the Netherlands. Radiology. 2020;297(1):E216-E222. doi:10.1148/radiol.2020201629.

3. Siddiqi HK, and Mehra MR. COVID-19 illness in native and immunosuppressed states: A clinical–therapeutic staging proposal. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020;39:405-407.

4. Connors JM, and Levy JH. COVID-19 and its implications for thrombosis and anticoagulation. Blood. 2020;135:2033-2040.

5. Ackermann M, et al. Pulmonary vascular endothelialitis, thrombosis, and angiogenesis in Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 July 9;383:120-128. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2015432.

6. Knight SR, et al. Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: Development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score. BMJ. 2020;370:m3339. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3339.

7. Beigel JH, et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19 – Final report. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1813-1826. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

8. Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19: Interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results. medRxiv. 2020;10.15.20209817. doi:10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817.

9. Agarwal A, et al. Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate covid-19 in adults in India: open label phase II multicentre randomised controlled trial (PLACID Trial). BMJ. 2020;371:m3939.

10. Simonovich VA, et al. A randomized trial of convalescent plasma in Covid-19 severe pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 24. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2031304.

11. Joyner MJ, et al. Convalescent Plasma Antibody Levels and the Risk of Death from Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2021; 384:1015-1027. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2031893.

12. The RECOVERY Collaborative Group: Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19 – Preliminary report. N Engl J Med. 2020 July 17. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2021436.

13. Porfidia A, et al. Venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2020 Dec;196:67-74.

14. Nadkarni GN, et al. Anticoagulation, mortality, bleeding and pathology among patients hospitalized with COVID-19: A single health system study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Oct 20;76(16):1815-1826. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.041.

15. Paranjpe I, et al. Association of treatment dose anticoagulation with in-hospital survival among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 7;76(1):122-124. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.001.

16. Full-dose blood thinners decreased need for life support and improved outcome in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. National Institutes of Health. Available at https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/full-dose-blood-thinners-decreased-need-life-support-improved-outcome-hospitalized-covid-19-patients.

17. Tobin MJ, et al. Why COVID-19 silent hypoxemia is baffling to physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 1;202(3):356-360. doi:10.1164/rccm.202006-2157CP.

18. Berlin DA, et al. Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2451-2460. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp2009575.

Evidence on emerging treatments for COVID-19 has been incomplete, often disappointing, and rapidly changing. The concept of a practice-changing press release is as novel as the coronavirus. The pandemic has created an interdependent set of inpatient challenges: keeping up with evolving science and operationalizing clinical workflows, technology, and therapeutics to adapt what we are learning. 

At Dell Medical School, we have created a Therapeutics and Informatics Committee to put evidence into practice in real-time, and below is a brief framework of what we have learned to date:

The COVID-19 disease course can be broken down into 3 stages, and workup and interventions should be targeted to those stages.^1–3

Stage 1 is the viral phase following a median 5-day pre-symptomatic phase from exposure; this is indistinguishable from an influenza-like illness with the typical fever, cough, GI symptoms, and the more specific anosmia, ageusia, and orthostasis.

Stage 2 is the pulmonary phase where patients develop COVID-19 pneumonia and will have diffuse chest infiltrates on imaging. This stage usually represents the tail end of the viral phase prior to recovery, but for the ~15% of patients who present to the hospital needing admission because of hypoxemia (the definition of severe COVID-19, typically 5-7 days from symptom onset) this phase is characterized by elevated inflammatory markers and an exuberant host-immune response.

Stage 3 is the dreaded thrombo-inflammatory phase, which is a late manifestation usually >10 days from symptom onset and appears to be independent of viral replication. The morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 is likely a result of diffuse microthrombosis, and critical disease should no longer be thought of as a “cytokine storm,” but as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Unlike sepsis, the predominant pathology is not vasodilation and shock, but a hypercoagulable state with diffuse endothelial damage.^4,5

Workup on presentation to the hospital should focus on identifying which phase of illness the patient is in, based on timing of symptom onset, inflammatory markers, and end-organ damage. CBC, CMP, D-dimer, troponin, and CRP are likely sufficient baseline labs in addition to a chest X-ray. There are many risk stratification tools, but to date, the 4C Mortality 4C Deterioration Scores are recommended due to their large derivation cohort and reliance on only 8 practical variables.⁶

Remdesivir and convalescent plasma (CVP) disrupt viral replication in stages 1 and 2 of the illness. Remdesivir has shown efficacy reducing hospital length of stay and a small trend towards decreasing mortality, especially if given within 10 days of symptom onset, although its effectiveness in general use is very small, if it exists at all.^7,8 CVP efficacy has been disappointing and should not be the standard of care: multiple RCTs do not show any clinical benefit, although the Mayo Clinic registry data suggests that high-titer CVP given within 3 days from diagnosis decreases mortality compared to low-titer plasma.^9-11 Monoclonal antibodies are theoretically “supercharged” high-titer CVP, but are approved for outpatient use only. Trials for hospitalized patients requiring oxygen were stopped due to futility. By the time the patient is hospitalized, it is probably too late in the disease course for CVP or monoclonal antibodies to be effective.

Dexamethasone is the only treatment with a proven mortality benefit. The RECOVERY trial showed the greatest mortality benefit (number needed to treat [NNT] of 8) in mechanically ventilated patients > 7 days from symptom onset. While there is a benefit to patients requiring any oxygen (NNT of 35), early administration to patients in the viral phase is associated with higher mortality as corticosteroids can reduce viral clearance.¹² Corticosteroids should therefore be targeted to a therapeutic window to reduce the dysregulated host immune response and treat ARDS in phases 2 and 3; earlier is not necessarily better.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) increases linearly with disease severity (one metanalysis showing a rate of 24% in the ICU¹³) and autopsy studies demonstrate diffuse microthrombosis even when VTE was not suspected⁵. Observational studies have shown VTE pharmacoprophylaxis reduces mortality, but the optimal agent, timing, and intensity of regimens is not yet clear.^14-15 A recent press release from the NIH reported that full dose prophylactic anticoagulation in moderately ill patients reduced disease progression and trended toward lower mortality. Interestingly, for critically ill patients requiring high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or mechanical ventilation, intensified anticoagulation regiments had potential harm, and enrollment was stopped in this cohort.¹⁶ This announcement is a hopeful sign that intensified anticoagulation regimens can prevent thrombo-inflammation, but until the data of multiple ongoing trials is published it remains expert opinion only.

The most important treatment remains delivering oxygen with fidelity, correcting the much-observed “silent” or “happy hypoxemic.”¹⁷ Given the high mortality associated with mechanical ventilation and that hypoxemia can be out of proportion to respiratory distress, arbitrary thresholds should not be used to decide when to intubate and instead should evaluate work of breathing, hypercapnia, mentation, or progression of end-organ damage rather than a single cutoff.¹⁸ High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can correct severe hypoxemia in addition to self-proning, and while there is scant outcomes data for this strategy, it has been adopted widely as ICU capacity is strained nationally. A ventilator can add PEEP for alveolar recruitment or perform the work of breathing for a patient, but a patient will receive 100% FiO2 whether it is delivered through the nares on HFNC or 10 inches lower by an endotracheal tube.

In the absence of a single therapeutic cure or breakthrough, caring for a COVID-19 patient requires the hospital system to instead do a thousand things conscientiously and consistently. This is supportive care: most patients will get better with time and attentive evaluation for end-organ complications like myocarditis, encephalopathy, or pressure ulcers. It requires nursing to patient ratios that allows for this type of vigilance, with shared protocols, order sets, and close communication among team members that provides this support. The treatment of COVID-19 continues to evolve, but as we confront rising hospital volumes nationally, it is important to standardize care for patients throughout each of the 3 stages of illness until we find that single breakthrough.

Dr. Brode is a practicing internal medicine physician at Dell Seton Medical Center and assistant professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at Dell Medical School, both in Austin, Texas. He is a clinician educator who emphasizes knowing the patient as a person first, evidence-based diagnosis, and comprehensive care for the patients who are most vulnerable. This article is part of a series originally published in The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

References

1. Cummings MJ, et al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet. 2020 June 6;395(10239):1763-1770. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31189-2.

2. Oudkerk M, et al. Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of thromboembolic complications in COVID-19: Report of the National Institute for Public Health of the Netherlands. Radiology. 2020;297(1):E216-E222. doi:10.1148/radiol.2020201629.

3. Siddiqi HK, and Mehra MR. COVID-19 illness in native and immunosuppressed states: A clinical–therapeutic staging proposal. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020;39:405-407.

4. Connors JM, and Levy JH. COVID-19 and its implications for thrombosis and anticoagulation. Blood. 2020;135:2033-2040.

5. Ackermann M, et al. Pulmonary vascular endothelialitis, thrombosis, and angiogenesis in Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 July 9;383:120-128. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2015432.

6. Knight SR, et al. Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: Development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score. BMJ. 2020;370:m3339. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3339.

7. Beigel JH, et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19 – Final report. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1813-1826. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

8. Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19: Interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results. medRxiv. 2020;10.15.20209817. doi:10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817.

9. Agarwal A, et al. Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate covid-19 in adults in India: open label phase II multicentre randomised controlled trial (PLACID Trial). BMJ. 2020;371:m3939.

10. Simonovich VA, et al. A randomized trial of convalescent plasma in Covid-19 severe pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 24. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2031304.

11. Joyner MJ, et al. Convalescent Plasma Antibody Levels and the Risk of Death from Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2021; 384:1015-1027. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2031893.

12. The RECOVERY Collaborative Group: Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19 – Preliminary report. N Engl J Med. 2020 July 17. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2021436.

13. Porfidia A, et al. Venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2020 Dec;196:67-74.

14. Nadkarni GN, et al. Anticoagulation, mortality, bleeding and pathology among patients hospitalized with COVID-19: A single health system study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Oct 20;76(16):1815-1826. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.041.

15. Paranjpe I, et al. Association of treatment dose anticoagulation with in-hospital survival among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 7;76(1):122-124. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.001.

16. Full-dose blood thinners decreased need for life support and improved outcome in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. National Institutes of Health. Available at https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/full-dose-blood-thinners-decreased-need-life-support-improved-outcome-hospitalized-covid-19-patients.

17. Tobin MJ, et al. Why COVID-19 silent hypoxemia is baffling to physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 1;202(3):356-360. doi:10.1164/rccm.202006-2157CP.

18. Berlin DA, et al. Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2451-2460. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp2009575.

Evidence on emerging treatments for COVID-19 has been incomplete, often disappointing, and rapidly changing. The concept of a practice-changing press release is as novel as the coronavirus. The pandemic has created an interdependent set of inpatient challenges: keeping up with evolving science and operationalizing clinical workflows, technology, and therapeutics to adapt what we are learning. 

At Dell Medical School, we have created a Therapeutics and Informatics Committee to put evidence into practice in real-time, and below is a brief framework of what we have learned to date:

The COVID-19 disease course can be broken down into 3 stages, and workup and interventions should be targeted to those stages.^1–3

Stage 1 is the viral phase following a median 5-day pre-symptomatic phase from exposure; this is indistinguishable from an influenza-like illness with the typical fever, cough, GI symptoms, and the more specific anosmia, ageusia, and orthostasis.

Stage 2 is the pulmonary phase where patients develop COVID-19 pneumonia and will have diffuse chest infiltrates on imaging. This stage usually represents the tail end of the viral phase prior to recovery, but for the ~15% of patients who present to the hospital needing admission because of hypoxemia (the definition of severe COVID-19, typically 5-7 days from symptom onset) this phase is characterized by elevated inflammatory markers and an exuberant host-immune response.

Stage 3 is the dreaded thrombo-inflammatory phase, which is a late manifestation usually >10 days from symptom onset and appears to be independent of viral replication. The morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 is likely a result of diffuse microthrombosis, and critical disease should no longer be thought of as a “cytokine storm,” but as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Unlike sepsis, the predominant pathology is not vasodilation and shock, but a hypercoagulable state with diffuse endothelial damage.^4,5

Workup on presentation to the hospital should focus on identifying which phase of illness the patient is in, based on timing of symptom onset, inflammatory markers, and end-organ damage. CBC, CMP, D-dimer, troponin, and CRP are likely sufficient baseline labs in addition to a chest X-ray. There are many risk stratification tools, but to date, the 4C Mortality 4C Deterioration Scores are recommended due to their large derivation cohort and reliance on only 8 practical variables.⁶

Remdesivir and convalescent plasma (CVP) disrupt viral replication in stages 1 and 2 of the illness. Remdesivir has shown efficacy reducing hospital length of stay and a small trend towards decreasing mortality, especially if given within 10 days of symptom onset, although its effectiveness in general use is very small, if it exists at all.^7,8 CVP efficacy has been disappointing and should not be the standard of care: multiple RCTs do not show any clinical benefit, although the Mayo Clinic registry data suggests that high-titer CVP given within 3 days from diagnosis decreases mortality compared to low-titer plasma.^9-11 Monoclonal antibodies are theoretically “supercharged” high-titer CVP, but are approved for outpatient use only. Trials for hospitalized patients requiring oxygen were stopped due to futility. By the time the patient is hospitalized, it is probably too late in the disease course for CVP or monoclonal antibodies to be effective.

Dexamethasone is the only treatment with a proven mortality benefit. The RECOVERY trial showed the greatest mortality benefit (number needed to treat [NNT] of 8) in mechanically ventilated patients > 7 days from symptom onset. While there is a benefit to patients requiring any oxygen (NNT of 35), early administration to patients in the viral phase is associated with higher mortality as corticosteroids can reduce viral clearance.¹² Corticosteroids should therefore be targeted to a therapeutic window to reduce the dysregulated host immune response and treat ARDS in phases 2 and 3; earlier is not necessarily better.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) increases linearly with disease severity (one metanalysis showing a rate of 24% in the ICU¹³) and autopsy studies demonstrate diffuse microthrombosis even when VTE was not suspected⁵. Observational studies have shown VTE pharmacoprophylaxis reduces mortality, but the optimal agent, timing, and intensity of regimens is not yet clear.^14-15 A recent press release from the NIH reported that full dose prophylactic anticoagulation in moderately ill patients reduced disease progression and trended toward lower mortality. Interestingly, for critically ill patients requiring high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or mechanical ventilation, intensified anticoagulation regiments had potential harm, and enrollment was stopped in this cohort.¹⁶ This announcement is a hopeful sign that intensified anticoagulation regimens can prevent thrombo-inflammation, but until the data of multiple ongoing trials is published it remains expert opinion only.

The most important treatment remains delivering oxygen with fidelity, correcting the much-observed “silent” or “happy hypoxemic.”¹⁷ Given the high mortality associated with mechanical ventilation and that hypoxemia can be out of proportion to respiratory distress, arbitrary thresholds should not be used to decide when to intubate and instead should evaluate work of breathing, hypercapnia, mentation, or progression of end-organ damage rather than a single cutoff.¹⁸ High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can correct severe hypoxemia in addition to self-proning, and while there is scant outcomes data for this strategy, it has been adopted widely as ICU capacity is strained nationally. A ventilator can add PEEP for alveolar recruitment or perform the work of breathing for a patient, but a patient will receive 100% FiO2 whether it is delivered through the nares on HFNC or 10 inches lower by an endotracheal tube.

In the absence of a single therapeutic cure or breakthrough, caring for a COVID-19 patient requires the hospital system to instead do a thousand things conscientiously and consistently. This is supportive care: most patients will get better with time and attentive evaluation for end-organ complications like myocarditis, encephalopathy, or pressure ulcers. It requires nursing to patient ratios that allows for this type of vigilance, with shared protocols, order sets, and close communication among team members that provides this support. The treatment of COVID-19 continues to evolve, but as we confront rising hospital volumes nationally, it is important to standardize care for patients throughout each of the 3 stages of illness until we find that single breakthrough.

Dr. Brode is a practicing internal medicine physician at Dell Seton Medical Center and assistant professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at Dell Medical School, both in Austin, Texas. He is a clinician educator who emphasizes knowing the patient as a person first, evidence-based diagnosis, and comprehensive care for the patients who are most vulnerable. This article is part of a series originally published in The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

References

1. Cummings MJ, et al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet. 2020 June 6;395(10239):1763-1770. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31189-2.

2. Oudkerk M, et al. Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of thromboembolic complications in COVID-19: Report of the National Institute for Public Health of the Netherlands. Radiology. 2020;297(1):E216-E222. doi:10.1148/radiol.2020201629.

3. Siddiqi HK, and Mehra MR. COVID-19 illness in native and immunosuppressed states: A clinical–therapeutic staging proposal. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020;39:405-407.

4. Connors JM, and Levy JH. COVID-19 and its implications for thrombosis and anticoagulation. Blood. 2020;135:2033-2040.

5. Ackermann M, et al. Pulmonary vascular endothelialitis, thrombosis, and angiogenesis in Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 July 9;383:120-128. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2015432.

6. Knight SR, et al. Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: Development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score. BMJ. 2020;370:m3339. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3339.

7. Beigel JH, et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19 – Final report. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1813-1826. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

8. Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19: Interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results. medRxiv. 2020;10.15.20209817. doi:10.1101/2020.10.15.20209817.

9. Agarwal A, et al. Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate covid-19 in adults in India: open label phase II multicentre randomised controlled trial (PLACID Trial). BMJ. 2020;371:m3939.

10. Simonovich VA, et al. A randomized trial of convalescent plasma in Covid-19 severe pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 24. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2031304.

11. Joyner MJ, et al. Convalescent Plasma Antibody Levels and the Risk of Death from Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2021; 384:1015-1027. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2031893.

12. The RECOVERY Collaborative Group: Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19 – Preliminary report. N Engl J Med. 2020 July 17. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2021436.

13. Porfidia A, et al. Venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2020 Dec;196:67-74.

14. Nadkarni GN, et al. Anticoagulation, mortality, bleeding and pathology among patients hospitalized with COVID-19: A single health system study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Oct 20;76(16):1815-1826. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.041.

15. Paranjpe I, et al. Association of treatment dose anticoagulation with in-hospital survival among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 7;76(1):122-124. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.001.

16. Full-dose blood thinners decreased need for life support and improved outcome in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. National Institutes of Health. Available at https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/full-dose-blood-thinners-decreased-need-life-support-improved-outcome-hospitalized-covid-19-patients.

17. Tobin MJ, et al. Why COVID-19 silent hypoxemia is baffling to physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 1;202(3):356-360. doi:10.1164/rccm.202006-2157CP.

18. Berlin DA, et al. Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2451-2460. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp2009575.

A new tool for predicting the risk of severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with early-stage breast cancer outperforms existing models and should help older patients and physicians make treatment decisions with more confidence, according to investigators.

They devised and tested the tool, called the Cancer and Aging Research Group–Breast Cancer (CARG-BC) score, in two cohorts of patients aged 65 years or older with stage I-III breast cancer.

The area under the curve for predicting grade 3-5 toxicity was 0.75 in the development cohort and 0.69 in the validation cohort, for a combined AUC of 0.73.

The CARG-BC score outperformed both Karnofsky performance status (AUC, 0.50) and the Cancer and Aging Research Group Chemotherapy Toxicity Tool (AUC, 0.56).

CARG-BC risk groups were also associated with hospitalizations, dose modifications, and early termination of treatment.

Allison Magnuson, DO, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues described these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

About CARG-BC

To calculate a patient’s CARG-BC score, the researchers added up points assigned to eight independent predictors of grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity:

• Planned anthracycline use (1 point)
• Stage II or III disease (3 points)
• Planned treatment duration longer than 3 months (4 points)
• Abnormal liver function (3 points)
• Low hemoglobin level (3 points)
• A fall in the previous 6 months (4 points)
• Limited ability to walk more than 1 mile (3 points)
• Lack of social support (3 points)

Patients with scores of 0-5 have a low risk, those with scores of 6-11 have an intermediate risk, and those with scores of 12 or above have a high risk of grade 3-5 toxicity.
 

Patient characteristics and results

There were 283 patients in the development cohort and 190 in the validation cohort. There were no significant demographic, disease, or treatment differences between the cohorts.

All patients had a mean age of 70.5 years, 36.2% had stage I disease, 42.9% had stage II, and 20.9% had stage III disease. Three-quarters of patients were non-Hispanic White, and 99.4% were women. Roughly a third of patients had received an anthracycline-based regimen.

Overall, about a quarter of patients had an unplanned dose reduction (24%), dose delay (26%), stopped treatment early (24%), or were hospitalized during treatment (23%). All of these occurrences were more likely in intermediate- and high-risk patients versus low-risk patients (P < .001).

In the development cohort, 19% of low-risk patients, 54% of intermediate-risk patients, and 87% of high-risk patients developed grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity.

Compared with the 93 patients in the low-risk group, the odds of toxicity was almost 5 times greater for the 159 intermediate-risk subjects, and 28 times greater for the 30 high-risk subjects.

In the validation cohort, grade 3-5 toxicity rates were 27% in the low-risk group, 45% in the intermediate-risk group, and 76% in the high-risk group.

This study had its limitations, including that a majority of subjects (72.2%) had a college education, and the validation cohort was accrued from the same 16 institutions as the development cohort.

“Further validation in a more diverse population should be considered,” the investigators wrote.
 

A ‘useful’ tool for guiding therapy

The investigators noted that chemotherapy is a complex decision for older adults with stage I-III breast cancer. While it may be indicated, chemotherapy is underused often because of the higher risk of severe toxicity in older people.

“Unfortunately, older adults aged 65 and over, who comprise about half of all breast cancer diagnoses, are significantly less likely to be offered chemotherapy compared to younger patients – sometimes because their doctors fear they won’t be able to tolerate it,” investigator Mina Sedrak, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., said in a press release.

The CARG-BC score may be useful to direct therapy in older adults with early-stage breast cancer, the investigators wrote. They noted that intensifying supportive care and developing modified treatment regimens may be appropriate for patients at higher risk for toxicity.

“Although this score should not be used as the only factor in deciding whether to administer and/or alter the dose or schedule of chemotherapy, the CARG-BC score can be used to facilitate this complex decision-making process, along with clinical judgment and patient preferences,” they wrote.

“I think this is a great tool. [It] will be helpful to me to have a more accurate conversation with geriatric patients about the actual risk/benefit ratio for chemotherapy in early breast cancer,” said Amy Tiersten, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, when asked for comment.

“If routinely implemented, it may help reduce age bias and also identify older patients who may look well but may be vulnerable and quickly decompensate while undergoing treatment,” said Lidia Schapira, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University. “Importantly, it can be used to guide conversations about trade-offs and to start a frank conversation about an older patient’s fears and concerns about treatment.”

This research was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope. The investigators, Dr. Schapira, and Dr. Tiersten had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A new tool for predicting the risk of severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with early-stage breast cancer outperforms existing models and should help older patients and physicians make treatment decisions with more confidence, according to investigators.

They devised and tested the tool, called the Cancer and Aging Research Group–Breast Cancer (CARG-BC) score, in two cohorts of patients aged 65 years or older with stage I-III breast cancer.

The area under the curve for predicting grade 3-5 toxicity was 0.75 in the development cohort and 0.69 in the validation cohort, for a combined AUC of 0.73.

The CARG-BC score outperformed both Karnofsky performance status (AUC, 0.50) and the Cancer and Aging Research Group Chemotherapy Toxicity Tool (AUC, 0.56).

CARG-BC risk groups were also associated with hospitalizations, dose modifications, and early termination of treatment.

Allison Magnuson, DO, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues described these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

About CARG-BC

To calculate a patient’s CARG-BC score, the researchers added up points assigned to eight independent predictors of grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity:

• Planned anthracycline use (1 point)
• Stage II or III disease (3 points)
• Planned treatment duration longer than 3 months (4 points)
• Abnormal liver function (3 points)
• Low hemoglobin level (3 points)
• A fall in the previous 6 months (4 points)
• Limited ability to walk more than 1 mile (3 points)
• Lack of social support (3 points)

Patients with scores of 0-5 have a low risk, those with scores of 6-11 have an intermediate risk, and those with scores of 12 or above have a high risk of grade 3-5 toxicity.
 

Patient characteristics and results

There were 283 patients in the development cohort and 190 in the validation cohort. There were no significant demographic, disease, or treatment differences between the cohorts.

All patients had a mean age of 70.5 years, 36.2% had stage I disease, 42.9% had stage II, and 20.9% had stage III disease. Three-quarters of patients were non-Hispanic White, and 99.4% were women. Roughly a third of patients had received an anthracycline-based regimen.

Overall, about a quarter of patients had an unplanned dose reduction (24%), dose delay (26%), stopped treatment early (24%), or were hospitalized during treatment (23%). All of these occurrences were more likely in intermediate- and high-risk patients versus low-risk patients (P < .001).

In the development cohort, 19% of low-risk patients, 54% of intermediate-risk patients, and 87% of high-risk patients developed grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity.

Compared with the 93 patients in the low-risk group, the odds of toxicity was almost 5 times greater for the 159 intermediate-risk subjects, and 28 times greater for the 30 high-risk subjects.

In the validation cohort, grade 3-5 toxicity rates were 27% in the low-risk group, 45% in the intermediate-risk group, and 76% in the high-risk group.

This study had its limitations, including that a majority of subjects (72.2%) had a college education, and the validation cohort was accrued from the same 16 institutions as the development cohort.

“Further validation in a more diverse population should be considered,” the investigators wrote.
 

A ‘useful’ tool for guiding therapy

The investigators noted that chemotherapy is a complex decision for older adults with stage I-III breast cancer. While it may be indicated, chemotherapy is underused often because of the higher risk of severe toxicity in older people.

“Unfortunately, older adults aged 65 and over, who comprise about half of all breast cancer diagnoses, are significantly less likely to be offered chemotherapy compared to younger patients – sometimes because their doctors fear they won’t be able to tolerate it,” investigator Mina Sedrak, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., said in a press release.

The CARG-BC score may be useful to direct therapy in older adults with early-stage breast cancer, the investigators wrote. They noted that intensifying supportive care and developing modified treatment regimens may be appropriate for patients at higher risk for toxicity.

“Although this score should not be used as the only factor in deciding whether to administer and/or alter the dose or schedule of chemotherapy, the CARG-BC score can be used to facilitate this complex decision-making process, along with clinical judgment and patient preferences,” they wrote.

“I think this is a great tool. [It] will be helpful to me to have a more accurate conversation with geriatric patients about the actual risk/benefit ratio for chemotherapy in early breast cancer,” said Amy Tiersten, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, when asked for comment.

“If routinely implemented, it may help reduce age bias and also identify older patients who may look well but may be vulnerable and quickly decompensate while undergoing treatment,” said Lidia Schapira, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University. “Importantly, it can be used to guide conversations about trade-offs and to start a frank conversation about an older patient’s fears and concerns about treatment.”

This research was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope. The investigators, Dr. Schapira, and Dr. Tiersten had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A new tool for predicting the risk of severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with early-stage breast cancer outperforms existing models and should help older patients and physicians make treatment decisions with more confidence, according to investigators.

They devised and tested the tool, called the Cancer and Aging Research Group–Breast Cancer (CARG-BC) score, in two cohorts of patients aged 65 years or older with stage I-III breast cancer.

The area under the curve for predicting grade 3-5 toxicity was 0.75 in the development cohort and 0.69 in the validation cohort, for a combined AUC of 0.73.

The CARG-BC score outperformed both Karnofsky performance status (AUC, 0.50) and the Cancer and Aging Research Group Chemotherapy Toxicity Tool (AUC, 0.56).

CARG-BC risk groups were also associated with hospitalizations, dose modifications, and early termination of treatment.

Allison Magnuson, DO, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues described these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
 

About CARG-BC

To calculate a patient’s CARG-BC score, the researchers added up points assigned to eight independent predictors of grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity:

• Planned anthracycline use (1 point)
• Stage II or III disease (3 points)
• Planned treatment duration longer than 3 months (4 points)
• Abnormal liver function (3 points)
• Low hemoglobin level (3 points)
• A fall in the previous 6 months (4 points)
• Limited ability to walk more than 1 mile (3 points)
• Lack of social support (3 points)

Patients with scores of 0-5 have a low risk, those with scores of 6-11 have an intermediate risk, and those with scores of 12 or above have a high risk of grade 3-5 toxicity.
 

Patient characteristics and results

There were 283 patients in the development cohort and 190 in the validation cohort. There were no significant demographic, disease, or treatment differences between the cohorts.

All patients had a mean age of 70.5 years, 36.2% had stage I disease, 42.9% had stage II, and 20.9% had stage III disease. Three-quarters of patients were non-Hispanic White, and 99.4% were women. Roughly a third of patients had received an anthracycline-based regimen.

Overall, about a quarter of patients had an unplanned dose reduction (24%), dose delay (26%), stopped treatment early (24%), or were hospitalized during treatment (23%). All of these occurrences were more likely in intermediate- and high-risk patients versus low-risk patients (P < .001).

In the development cohort, 19% of low-risk patients, 54% of intermediate-risk patients, and 87% of high-risk patients developed grade 3-5 chemotherapy toxicity.

Compared with the 93 patients in the low-risk group, the odds of toxicity was almost 5 times greater for the 159 intermediate-risk subjects, and 28 times greater for the 30 high-risk subjects.

In the validation cohort, grade 3-5 toxicity rates were 27% in the low-risk group, 45% in the intermediate-risk group, and 76% in the high-risk group.

This study had its limitations, including that a majority of subjects (72.2%) had a college education, and the validation cohort was accrued from the same 16 institutions as the development cohort.

“Further validation in a more diverse population should be considered,” the investigators wrote.
 

A ‘useful’ tool for guiding therapy

The investigators noted that chemotherapy is a complex decision for older adults with stage I-III breast cancer. While it may be indicated, chemotherapy is underused often because of the higher risk of severe toxicity in older people.

“Unfortunately, older adults aged 65 and over, who comprise about half of all breast cancer diagnoses, are significantly less likely to be offered chemotherapy compared to younger patients – sometimes because their doctors fear they won’t be able to tolerate it,” investigator Mina Sedrak, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif., said in a press release.

The CARG-BC score may be useful to direct therapy in older adults with early-stage breast cancer, the investigators wrote. They noted that intensifying supportive care and developing modified treatment regimens may be appropriate for patients at higher risk for toxicity.

“Although this score should not be used as the only factor in deciding whether to administer and/or alter the dose or schedule of chemotherapy, the CARG-BC score can be used to facilitate this complex decision-making process, along with clinical judgment and patient preferences,” they wrote.

“I think this is a great tool. [It] will be helpful to me to have a more accurate conversation with geriatric patients about the actual risk/benefit ratio for chemotherapy in early breast cancer,” said Amy Tiersten, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, when asked for comment.

“If routinely implemented, it may help reduce age bias and also identify older patients who may look well but may be vulnerable and quickly decompensate while undergoing treatment,” said Lidia Schapira, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University. “Importantly, it can be used to guide conversations about trade-offs and to start a frank conversation about an older patient’s fears and concerns about treatment.”

This research was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope. The investigators, Dr. Schapira, and Dr. Tiersten had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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