PHILADELPHIA – When the male partner used marijuana one or more times per week before conception, couples had a higher rate of spontaneous abortion, compared with infrequent use or no use of marijuana by the male partner, Alyssa F. Harlow, MPH, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

The male partner’s use of marijuana “one or more times per week in the past 2 months during the preconception period in our study was associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion,” said Ms. Harlow, a PhD candidate at Boston University. “The association attenuated for later pregnancy losses, and persisted for those with shorter [pregnancy] attempt time at [study] entry.”

Ms. Harlow and colleagues prospectively collected data from 1,535 couples in the Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) study, a preconception cohort study examining risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes. PRESTO enrolled women aged 21-45 years and their male partners aged 21 years or older who were attempting to conceive without the use of fertility treatment.

The researchers administered a screening and baseline questionnaire to the women, who then included their male partners in the study. The male partners completed their own baseline questionnaire that asked about demographics, medical history, and lifestyle or behavioral factors including marijuana use. The questions centering around marijuana use asked whether the partner had used marijuana within the past 2 months, and the frequency of marijuana use during that period.

Women in PRESTO were followed every 8 weeks until a pregnancy occurred, or up to 12 months if no pregnancy occurred. If they became pregnant, the women were asked additional questions at less than 12 weeks’ gestation and then again at 32 weeks’ gestation, including questions about any miscarriages, and how long a pregnancy lasted if a miscarriage did occur.

At baseline, 1,267 couples (83%) reported no marijuana use by male partners, 140 couples (9%) reported use less than 1 time per week, and 128 couples (8%) reported marijuana use at least 1 time per week. Men at baseline were similar in age and body mass index among groups, but men who used marijuana were more likely to be cigarette smokers (24% vs. 4%), were more likely to have partners who were cigarette smokers (11% vs. 2%), and were more likely to have partners who use marijuana (43% vs. 3%), compared with couples where the male partners did not use marijuana. Male partners who used marijuana also were less likely to be taking a daily multivitamin (25% vs. 37%), and were more likely to have been diagnosed with anxiety (14% vs. 7%) or depression (20% vs. 9%) compared with male partners who did not use marijuana.

Overall, 269 spontaneous abortions (17.5%) occurred during the study period, and couples where male partners used marijuana one or more times per week had approximately twice the rate of spontaneous abortions, compared with no marijuana use (hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval).

Couples in which men who used marijuana less than 1 time per week had a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion, but this did not reach statistical significance.

When the results were adjusted for female nonusers of marijuana, the results were “essentially identical,” said Ms. Harlow.

Couples who were trying to conceive for three or fewer cycles at baseline (1,045 couples) had a lower rate of spontaneous abortion than that of couples trying for three or more cycles (490 couples). When the results were stratified by gestational age at loss, the results persisted for couples with a pregnancy loss at less than 8 weeks (1,533 couples), but the effect of marijuana use was reduced for couples with a loss at 8 weeks or more (1,113 couples).

Ms. Harlow noted several limitations to the study, including lack of data on time-varying marijuana use, potential selection bias, and residual confounding. There also is likely misclassification of exposure among some participants because marijuana use was self-reported, she added.

Ms. Harlow reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Harlow AF et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-4.

PHILADELPHIA – When the male partner used marijuana one or more times per week before conception, couples had a higher rate of spontaneous abortion, compared with infrequent use or no use of marijuana by the male partner, Alyssa F. Harlow, MPH, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

The male partner’s use of marijuana “one or more times per week in the past 2 months during the preconception period in our study was associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion,” said Ms. Harlow, a PhD candidate at Boston University. “The association attenuated for later pregnancy losses, and persisted for those with shorter [pregnancy] attempt time at [study] entry.”

Ms. Harlow and colleagues prospectively collected data from 1,535 couples in the Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) study, a preconception cohort study examining risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes. PRESTO enrolled women aged 21-45 years and their male partners aged 21 years or older who were attempting to conceive without the use of fertility treatment.

The researchers administered a screening and baseline questionnaire to the women, who then included their male partners in the study. The male partners completed their own baseline questionnaire that asked about demographics, medical history, and lifestyle or behavioral factors including marijuana use. The questions centering around marijuana use asked whether the partner had used marijuana within the past 2 months, and the frequency of marijuana use during that period.

Women in PRESTO were followed every 8 weeks until a pregnancy occurred, or up to 12 months if no pregnancy occurred. If they became pregnant, the women were asked additional questions at less than 12 weeks’ gestation and then again at 32 weeks’ gestation, including questions about any miscarriages, and how long a pregnancy lasted if a miscarriage did occur.

At baseline, 1,267 couples (83%) reported no marijuana use by male partners, 140 couples (9%) reported use less than 1 time per week, and 128 couples (8%) reported marijuana use at least 1 time per week. Men at baseline were similar in age and body mass index among groups, but men who used marijuana were more likely to be cigarette smokers (24% vs. 4%), were more likely to have partners who were cigarette smokers (11% vs. 2%), and were more likely to have partners who use marijuana (43% vs. 3%), compared with couples where the male partners did not use marijuana. Male partners who used marijuana also were less likely to be taking a daily multivitamin (25% vs. 37%), and were more likely to have been diagnosed with anxiety (14% vs. 7%) or depression (20% vs. 9%) compared with male partners who did not use marijuana.

Overall, 269 spontaneous abortions (17.5%) occurred during the study period, and couples where male partners used marijuana one or more times per week had approximately twice the rate of spontaneous abortions, compared with no marijuana use (hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval).

Couples in which men who used marijuana less than 1 time per week had a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion, but this did not reach statistical significance.

When the results were adjusted for female nonusers of marijuana, the results were “essentially identical,” said Ms. Harlow.

Couples who were trying to conceive for three or fewer cycles at baseline (1,045 couples) had a lower rate of spontaneous abortion than that of couples trying for three or more cycles (490 couples). When the results were stratified by gestational age at loss, the results persisted for couples with a pregnancy loss at less than 8 weeks (1,533 couples), but the effect of marijuana use was reduced for couples with a loss at 8 weeks or more (1,113 couples).

Ms. Harlow noted several limitations to the study, including lack of data on time-varying marijuana use, potential selection bias, and residual confounding. There also is likely misclassification of exposure among some participants because marijuana use was self-reported, she added.

Ms. Harlow reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Harlow AF et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-4.

PHILADELPHIA – When the male partner used marijuana one or more times per week before conception, couples had a higher rate of spontaneous abortion, compared with infrequent use or no use of marijuana by the male partner, Alyssa F. Harlow, MPH, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

The male partner’s use of marijuana “one or more times per week in the past 2 months during the preconception period in our study was associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion,” said Ms. Harlow, a PhD candidate at Boston University. “The association attenuated for later pregnancy losses, and persisted for those with shorter [pregnancy] attempt time at [study] entry.”

Ms. Harlow and colleagues prospectively collected data from 1,535 couples in the Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) study, a preconception cohort study examining risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes. PRESTO enrolled women aged 21-45 years and their male partners aged 21 years or older who were attempting to conceive without the use of fertility treatment.

The researchers administered a screening and baseline questionnaire to the women, who then included their male partners in the study. The male partners completed their own baseline questionnaire that asked about demographics, medical history, and lifestyle or behavioral factors including marijuana use. The questions centering around marijuana use asked whether the partner had used marijuana within the past 2 months, and the frequency of marijuana use during that period.

Women in PRESTO were followed every 8 weeks until a pregnancy occurred, or up to 12 months if no pregnancy occurred. If they became pregnant, the women were asked additional questions at less than 12 weeks’ gestation and then again at 32 weeks’ gestation, including questions about any miscarriages, and how long a pregnancy lasted if a miscarriage did occur.

At baseline, 1,267 couples (83%) reported no marijuana use by male partners, 140 couples (9%) reported use less than 1 time per week, and 128 couples (8%) reported marijuana use at least 1 time per week. Men at baseline were similar in age and body mass index among groups, but men who used marijuana were more likely to be cigarette smokers (24% vs. 4%), were more likely to have partners who were cigarette smokers (11% vs. 2%), and were more likely to have partners who use marijuana (43% vs. 3%), compared with couples where the male partners did not use marijuana. Male partners who used marijuana also were less likely to be taking a daily multivitamin (25% vs. 37%), and were more likely to have been diagnosed with anxiety (14% vs. 7%) or depression (20% vs. 9%) compared with male partners who did not use marijuana.

Overall, 269 spontaneous abortions (17.5%) occurred during the study period, and couples where male partners used marijuana one or more times per week had approximately twice the rate of spontaneous abortions, compared with no marijuana use (hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval).

Couples in which men who used marijuana less than 1 time per week had a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion, but this did not reach statistical significance.

When the results were adjusted for female nonusers of marijuana, the results were “essentially identical,” said Ms. Harlow.

Couples who were trying to conceive for three or fewer cycles at baseline (1,045 couples) had a lower rate of spontaneous abortion than that of couples trying for three or more cycles (490 couples). When the results were stratified by gestational age at loss, the results persisted for couples with a pregnancy loss at less than 8 weeks (1,533 couples), but the effect of marijuana use was reduced for couples with a loss at 8 weeks or more (1,113 couples).

Ms. Harlow noted several limitations to the study, including lack of data on time-varying marijuana use, potential selection bias, and residual confounding. There also is likely misclassification of exposure among some participants because marijuana use was self-reported, she added.

Ms. Harlow reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Harlow AF et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-4.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity who underwent a lifestyle program targeting healthy eating and physical activity were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy or become spontaneously pregnant, Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, MSc, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

World Obesity Federation

However, women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in the study appeared to benefit more than did women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program, said Dr. Baillargeon, from the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

“Our lifestyle program targeting women with obesity seeking fertility treatments increased the chances of conceiving, mainly spontaneously. Women with PCOS seemed to benefit more from such a program,” said Dr. Baillargeon.

“These benefits occur along with small changes in weight, but important improvements in lifestyle, so lifestyle seems to be more important than weight change here,” he added.

The researchers randomized 130 women to receive the Fit-For-Fertility lifestyle program or usual care for infertility. The lifestyle program consisted of a low-intensity weekly intervention for 6 weeks in which patients met individually with a kinesiologist and nutritionist every week and also attended group sessions each week. Women in the intervention did not receive fertility treatment for the first 6 months while on the lifestyle program, and if they did not conceive during that time, they continued the program in combination with fertility treatments.

Patients were included if they were aged 18-40 years and had either infertility and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater or PCOS and a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater. Researchers excluded women planning to undergo bariatric surgery, women who were already undergoing another lifestyle intervention, and women with severe infertility or who had a male partner with severe infertility for whom in vitro fertilization was their only option for conceiving. Researchers collected data from patients at baseline and every 6 months up to 18 months, with additional visits for pregnant women scheduled at the beginning of pregnancy and at 26 weeks’ gestation. They collected baseline data on age, BMI, waist circumference, fat mass percentage, daily energy expenditure, and food frequency using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI).

Overall, 46 women in the intervention group and 52 women in the control group had a research visit at 6 months or pregnancy research visit at less than 6 months; of these, 33 women in the intervention group (65%) and 35 women in the control group (61%) had PCOS. At baseline, both PCOS and non-PCOS groups were similar; however, women in the PCOS intervention group had a lower BMI than did women without PCOS in the intervention group (37 kg/m² vs. 41 kg/m²; P less than .05), while women without PCOS in the intervention group had a higher fat mass percentage than did women with PCOS in the intervention group (46% vs. 49%; P less than .05).

With regard to weight loss, there was a 2.4% reduction in weight among all patients in the intervention group, compared with the control group (P = .003), with a 2.7% reduction in weight for the PCOS group (P = .015) and a 1.8% reduction in the non-PCOS group (P = .139). However, there were no significant differences between PCOS status and the lifestyle intervention, said Dr. Baillargeon.

At 6 months, the quality of women’s diets in the combined PCOS and non-PCOS group that participated in the lifestyle program showed significant improvement, compared with control groups (HEI, 18% vs. 5%; P less than .001). The PCOS group on its own showed significant improvement with the intervention (20% vs. 4%; P less than .001), whereas women without PCOS showed a nonsignificant improvement with the intervention (14% vs. 6%; P = .055). Daily energy expenditure improved in all groups that received the intervention, compared with the control groups, but there were no significant between-group differences in energy expenditure.

When analyzing fertility outcomes at 18 months, the pregnancy rate for all patients who received lifestyle interventions was 61%, compared with 39% in the control group (P = .02; number needed to treat, 4.5). In women with PCOS, those who underwent the lifestyle intervention had a pregnancy rate of 58%, compared with 34% in the control group (P = .05; NNT, 4.3); although women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program had an improved pregnancy rate over women in the control group, the results were not significant (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7).

The researchers also looked at the spontaneous pregnancy rate and found women who received the intervention had nearly three times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with women in the control group (33% vs. 12%; P = .01), while women with PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly five times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with the control group (27% vs. 6%; P = .02). Women without PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly twice the increased likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy, but the results were not significant (44% vs. 23%; P = .15).

Women with PCOS in the lifestyle program also had a higher live birth rate, compared with women in the control group (55% vs. 31%; P = .05; NNT, 4.3). Although women without PCOS in the lifestyle program (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7) and women in the study overall experienced higher live birth rates (51% vs. 37%; P = .14; NNT, 7.0), compared with the control group, these results were not significant, said Dr. Baillargeon.

“Such lifestyle interventions in women with obesity could significantly lower costs of fertility treatments, which is important,” concluded Dr. Baillargeon.

The Fit-For-Fertility program was funded by an unrestricted grant from Ferring.

SOURCE: Baillargeon J-P, et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-95.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity who underwent a lifestyle program targeting healthy eating and physical activity were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy or become spontaneously pregnant, Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, MSc, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

World Obesity Federation

However, women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in the study appeared to benefit more than did women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program, said Dr. Baillargeon, from the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

“Our lifestyle program targeting women with obesity seeking fertility treatments increased the chances of conceiving, mainly spontaneously. Women with PCOS seemed to benefit more from such a program,” said Dr. Baillargeon.

“These benefits occur along with small changes in weight, but important improvements in lifestyle, so lifestyle seems to be more important than weight change here,” he added.

The researchers randomized 130 women to receive the Fit-For-Fertility lifestyle program or usual care for infertility. The lifestyle program consisted of a low-intensity weekly intervention for 6 weeks in which patients met individually with a kinesiologist and nutritionist every week and also attended group sessions each week. Women in the intervention did not receive fertility treatment for the first 6 months while on the lifestyle program, and if they did not conceive during that time, they continued the program in combination with fertility treatments.

Patients were included if they were aged 18-40 years and had either infertility and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater or PCOS and a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater. Researchers excluded women planning to undergo bariatric surgery, women who were already undergoing another lifestyle intervention, and women with severe infertility or who had a male partner with severe infertility for whom in vitro fertilization was their only option for conceiving. Researchers collected data from patients at baseline and every 6 months up to 18 months, with additional visits for pregnant women scheduled at the beginning of pregnancy and at 26 weeks’ gestation. They collected baseline data on age, BMI, waist circumference, fat mass percentage, daily energy expenditure, and food frequency using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI).

Overall, 46 women in the intervention group and 52 women in the control group had a research visit at 6 months or pregnancy research visit at less than 6 months; of these, 33 women in the intervention group (65%) and 35 women in the control group (61%) had PCOS. At baseline, both PCOS and non-PCOS groups were similar; however, women in the PCOS intervention group had a lower BMI than did women without PCOS in the intervention group (37 kg/m² vs. 41 kg/m²; P less than .05), while women without PCOS in the intervention group had a higher fat mass percentage than did women with PCOS in the intervention group (46% vs. 49%; P less than .05).

With regard to weight loss, there was a 2.4% reduction in weight among all patients in the intervention group, compared with the control group (P = .003), with a 2.7% reduction in weight for the PCOS group (P = .015) and a 1.8% reduction in the non-PCOS group (P = .139). However, there were no significant differences between PCOS status and the lifestyle intervention, said Dr. Baillargeon.

At 6 months, the quality of women’s diets in the combined PCOS and non-PCOS group that participated in the lifestyle program showed significant improvement, compared with control groups (HEI, 18% vs. 5%; P less than .001). The PCOS group on its own showed significant improvement with the intervention (20% vs. 4%; P less than .001), whereas women without PCOS showed a nonsignificant improvement with the intervention (14% vs. 6%; P = .055). Daily energy expenditure improved in all groups that received the intervention, compared with the control groups, but there were no significant between-group differences in energy expenditure.

When analyzing fertility outcomes at 18 months, the pregnancy rate for all patients who received lifestyle interventions was 61%, compared with 39% in the control group (P = .02; number needed to treat, 4.5). In women with PCOS, those who underwent the lifestyle intervention had a pregnancy rate of 58%, compared with 34% in the control group (P = .05; NNT, 4.3); although women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program had an improved pregnancy rate over women in the control group, the results were not significant (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7).

The researchers also looked at the spontaneous pregnancy rate and found women who received the intervention had nearly three times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with women in the control group (33% vs. 12%; P = .01), while women with PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly five times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with the control group (27% vs. 6%; P = .02). Women without PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly twice the increased likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy, but the results were not significant (44% vs. 23%; P = .15).

Women with PCOS in the lifestyle program also had a higher live birth rate, compared with women in the control group (55% vs. 31%; P = .05; NNT, 4.3). Although women without PCOS in the lifestyle program (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7) and women in the study overall experienced higher live birth rates (51% vs. 37%; P = .14; NNT, 7.0), compared with the control group, these results were not significant, said Dr. Baillargeon.

“Such lifestyle interventions in women with obesity could significantly lower costs of fertility treatments, which is important,” concluded Dr. Baillargeon.

The Fit-For-Fertility program was funded by an unrestricted grant from Ferring.

SOURCE: Baillargeon J-P, et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-95.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity who underwent a lifestyle program targeting healthy eating and physical activity were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy or become spontaneously pregnant, Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, MSc, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

World Obesity Federation

However, women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in the study appeared to benefit more than did women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program, said Dr. Baillargeon, from the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

“Our lifestyle program targeting women with obesity seeking fertility treatments increased the chances of conceiving, mainly spontaneously. Women with PCOS seemed to benefit more from such a program,” said Dr. Baillargeon.

“These benefits occur along with small changes in weight, but important improvements in lifestyle, so lifestyle seems to be more important than weight change here,” he added.

The researchers randomized 130 women to receive the Fit-For-Fertility lifestyle program or usual care for infertility. The lifestyle program consisted of a low-intensity weekly intervention for 6 weeks in which patients met individually with a kinesiologist and nutritionist every week and also attended group sessions each week. Women in the intervention did not receive fertility treatment for the first 6 months while on the lifestyle program, and if they did not conceive during that time, they continued the program in combination with fertility treatments.

Patients were included if they were aged 18-40 years and had either infertility and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater or PCOS and a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater. Researchers excluded women planning to undergo bariatric surgery, women who were already undergoing another lifestyle intervention, and women with severe infertility or who had a male partner with severe infertility for whom in vitro fertilization was their only option for conceiving. Researchers collected data from patients at baseline and every 6 months up to 18 months, with additional visits for pregnant women scheduled at the beginning of pregnancy and at 26 weeks’ gestation. They collected baseline data on age, BMI, waist circumference, fat mass percentage, daily energy expenditure, and food frequency using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI).

Overall, 46 women in the intervention group and 52 women in the control group had a research visit at 6 months or pregnancy research visit at less than 6 months; of these, 33 women in the intervention group (65%) and 35 women in the control group (61%) had PCOS. At baseline, both PCOS and non-PCOS groups were similar; however, women in the PCOS intervention group had a lower BMI than did women without PCOS in the intervention group (37 kg/m² vs. 41 kg/m²; P less than .05), while women without PCOS in the intervention group had a higher fat mass percentage than did women with PCOS in the intervention group (46% vs. 49%; P less than .05).

With regard to weight loss, there was a 2.4% reduction in weight among all patients in the intervention group, compared with the control group (P = .003), with a 2.7% reduction in weight for the PCOS group (P = .015) and a 1.8% reduction in the non-PCOS group (P = .139). However, there were no significant differences between PCOS status and the lifestyle intervention, said Dr. Baillargeon.

At 6 months, the quality of women’s diets in the combined PCOS and non-PCOS group that participated in the lifestyle program showed significant improvement, compared with control groups (HEI, 18% vs. 5%; P less than .001). The PCOS group on its own showed significant improvement with the intervention (20% vs. 4%; P less than .001), whereas women without PCOS showed a nonsignificant improvement with the intervention (14% vs. 6%; P = .055). Daily energy expenditure improved in all groups that received the intervention, compared with the control groups, but there were no significant between-group differences in energy expenditure.

When analyzing fertility outcomes at 18 months, the pregnancy rate for all patients who received lifestyle interventions was 61%, compared with 39% in the control group (P = .02; number needed to treat, 4.5). In women with PCOS, those who underwent the lifestyle intervention had a pregnancy rate of 58%, compared with 34% in the control group (P = .05; NNT, 4.3); although women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program had an improved pregnancy rate over women in the control group, the results were not significant (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7).

The researchers also looked at the spontaneous pregnancy rate and found women who received the intervention had nearly three times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with women in the control group (33% vs. 12%; P = .01), while women with PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly five times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with the control group (27% vs. 6%; P = .02). Women without PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly twice the increased likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy, but the results were not significant (44% vs. 23%; P = .15).

Women with PCOS in the lifestyle program also had a higher live birth rate, compared with women in the control group (55% vs. 31%; P = .05; NNT, 4.3). Although women without PCOS in the lifestyle program (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7) and women in the study overall experienced higher live birth rates (51% vs. 37%; P = .14; NNT, 7.0), compared with the control group, these results were not significant, said Dr. Baillargeon.

“Such lifestyle interventions in women with obesity could significantly lower costs of fertility treatments, which is important,” concluded Dr. Baillargeon.

The Fit-For-Fertility program was funded by an unrestricted grant from Ferring.

SOURCE: Baillargeon J-P, et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-95.

Clinical Psychiatry News is pleased to announce the addition of three physicians to its editorial advisory board: Constance E. Dunlap, MD; Eva Ritvo, MD; and Linda L.M. Worley, MD.

Dr. Dunlap, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, is a Washington Psychiatric Society representative to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Assembly, a past president of the Washington Psychiatric Society, and clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington.

*This story was updated 2/26/2020.

Clinical Psychiatry News is pleased to announce the addition of three physicians to its editorial advisory board: Constance E. Dunlap, MD; Eva Ritvo, MD; and Linda L.M. Worley, MD.

Dr. Dunlap, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, is a Washington Psychiatric Society representative to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Assembly, a past president of the Washington Psychiatric Society, and clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington.

*This story was updated 2/26/2020.

Clinical Psychiatry News is pleased to announce the addition of three physicians to its editorial advisory board: Constance E. Dunlap, MD; Eva Ritvo, MD; and Linda L.M. Worley, MD.

Dr. Dunlap, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, is a Washington Psychiatric Society representative to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Assembly, a past president of the Washington Psychiatric Society, and clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington.

*This story was updated 2/26/2020.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I review two recent presentations at the European Society of Medical Oncology Congress regarding the expanded use of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in patients with advanced solid tumors, potentially broadening the indications for this important class of agents.

Metastatic CRPC

Perhaps 25% of prostate cancer patients have loss-of-function mutations – BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM – or alterations in homologous recombinant repair (HRR) genes. In the PROfound trial, men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had progressed on either abiraterone or enzalutamide and who had DNA-repair mutations were randomized to either olaparib (300 mg b.i.d.) or treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) with either abiraterone or enzalutamide plus prednisone (Hussain M et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA-12).

Two cohorts were enrolled. Cohort A included 245 men with BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM mutations, and cohort B included 142 men with other alterations (BARD1, BIRP1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD15B, RAD15C, RAD15D, or RAD54L). After disease progression, patients could cross over to receive PARPi, which more than 80% of patients eventually did.

Median radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort A was 7.39 months with PARPi, compared with 3.55 months with TPC, for a hazard ratio for progression on PARPi of 0.34 (P less than .0001). A significant benefit was seen for PARPi in the overall population (both cohorts), with a median radiographic PFS of 5.82 months va. 3.52 months, respectively (HR, 0.49; P less than .0001).

Among patients in cohort A, the objective response rate (ORR) was 33.3% with PARPi, compared with 2.3% for TPC, resulting in an odds ratio for ORR of 20.86 (P less than .0001).

PARPi demonstrated a longer time to pain progression in cohort A, with the median not reached, compared with 9.92 months with TPC (HR, 0.44; P = .0192). Perhaps because of the high proportion of TPC patients who eventually received PARPi, no statistically significant differences in overall survival have yet been seen.

 

What this means in practice

During my fellowship, a mentor taught that “because quality of life is generally better before progression than afterwards, PFS is a worthy endpoint in its own right.” For that reason, although I would have liked to see the data for cohort B alone, it appears worthwhile for physicians to make every effort to obtain PARPi. The difference in ORR, pain progression, and PFS at 12 months is clinically dramatic.

Of equal significance, however, is that PROfound is the first positive phase 3 biomarker-selected study evaluating a targeted treatment in patients with mCRPC. For prostate cancer – as for breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and several other cancers – the molecular biology and genetic background of our patients dictates the other tumors for which they and their family members are at risk, and expands the treatment armamentarium for them.

For those clinicians who needed to be convinced that “precision medicine” for prostate cancer patients was worthwhile, the PROfound trial should have a profound impact.
 

Advanced ovarian cancer

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial studied patients with stage III-IV ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who had surgery, platinum-taxane chemotherapy, and at least 3 months of bevacizumab. Patients were randomized to maintenance treatment with an additional 12 months of bevacizumab plus 24 months of PARPi with olaparib or placebo. Germline BRCA mutations were not required (Ray-Coquard I et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA2).

As reported at ESMO, adding PARPi to bevacizumab maintenance provided a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 22.1 months, in comparison with 16.6 months for bevacizumab alone. The difference was statistically significant.

For patients with tumor BRCA mutations (tBRCAm), PFS was 37.2 months with olaparib vs. 21.7 months for placebo (HR, 0.31). The PFS benefit was even more impressive for homologous recombination deficient (HRD)–positive patients, inclusive of those with tBRCAm (PFS 37.2 months for PARPi vs. 17.7 months for placebo; and in the 152 HRD-positive patients without tBRCAm, (median PFS 28.1 months vs. 16.6 months; HR, 0.43).

The improved PFS in patients with tBRCAm is similar to that reported in the SOLO1 trial of olaparib monotherapy vs. chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2495-2505), but the PFS in the control arm was longer in PAOLA-1 than in SOLO1, perhaps because of the use of bevacizumab in PAOLA-1. PARPi did not affect tolerance to bevacizumab.

In PAOLA-1, the HRD-positive patients who lacked tBRCAm and, by extension, lacked germline BRCA mutations – a new population of patients – was identified who benefited substantially from maintenance PARPi in the first-line setting.
 

What this means in practice

PAOLA-1 demonstrates that PARPi can improve outcomes in first-line treatment – and in patients beyond those with germline BRCA mutations. As a result, PAOLA-1 potentially changes the standard of care for initial treatment of the respectable fraction of patients with previously untreated, advanced müllerian cancers who have either tBRCAm or HRD positive tumors.

Importantly, PAOLA-1 is one of many published trials that stimulates the discussion of cost vs. value for combinations of biologics. The incremental benefit from the second biologic (in this case PARPi) is almost never completely additive or supra-additive to the benefit associated with the first biologic (in this case, bevacizumab). In that regard, despite the fact that PARPi showed a PFS benefit in the intent-to-treat population overall, precisely defining the patient population that has the greatest benefit will facilitate the goal of getting the treatments of greatest “value for cost” to our patients in the most responsible way.

Additional research will hopefully define the relative contribution of bevacizumab to PARPi in patients who benefited so dramatically from PARPi in PAOLA-1.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I review two recent presentations at the European Society of Medical Oncology Congress regarding the expanded use of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in patients with advanced solid tumors, potentially broadening the indications for this important class of agents.

Metastatic CRPC

Perhaps 25% of prostate cancer patients have loss-of-function mutations – BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM – or alterations in homologous recombinant repair (HRR) genes. In the PROfound trial, men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had progressed on either abiraterone or enzalutamide and who had DNA-repair mutations were randomized to either olaparib (300 mg b.i.d.) or treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) with either abiraterone or enzalutamide plus prednisone (Hussain M et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA-12).

Two cohorts were enrolled. Cohort A included 245 men with BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM mutations, and cohort B included 142 men with other alterations (BARD1, BIRP1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD15B, RAD15C, RAD15D, or RAD54L). After disease progression, patients could cross over to receive PARPi, which more than 80% of patients eventually did.

Median radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort A was 7.39 months with PARPi, compared with 3.55 months with TPC, for a hazard ratio for progression on PARPi of 0.34 (P less than .0001). A significant benefit was seen for PARPi in the overall population (both cohorts), with a median radiographic PFS of 5.82 months va. 3.52 months, respectively (HR, 0.49; P less than .0001).

Among patients in cohort A, the objective response rate (ORR) was 33.3% with PARPi, compared with 2.3% for TPC, resulting in an odds ratio for ORR of 20.86 (P less than .0001).

PARPi demonstrated a longer time to pain progression in cohort A, with the median not reached, compared with 9.92 months with TPC (HR, 0.44; P = .0192). Perhaps because of the high proportion of TPC patients who eventually received PARPi, no statistically significant differences in overall survival have yet been seen.

 

What this means in practice

During my fellowship, a mentor taught that “because quality of life is generally better before progression than afterwards, PFS is a worthy endpoint in its own right.” For that reason, although I would have liked to see the data for cohort B alone, it appears worthwhile for physicians to make every effort to obtain PARPi. The difference in ORR, pain progression, and PFS at 12 months is clinically dramatic.

Of equal significance, however, is that PROfound is the first positive phase 3 biomarker-selected study evaluating a targeted treatment in patients with mCRPC. For prostate cancer – as for breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and several other cancers – the molecular biology and genetic background of our patients dictates the other tumors for which they and their family members are at risk, and expands the treatment armamentarium for them.

For those clinicians who needed to be convinced that “precision medicine” for prostate cancer patients was worthwhile, the PROfound trial should have a profound impact.
 

Advanced ovarian cancer

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial studied patients with stage III-IV ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who had surgery, platinum-taxane chemotherapy, and at least 3 months of bevacizumab. Patients were randomized to maintenance treatment with an additional 12 months of bevacizumab plus 24 months of PARPi with olaparib or placebo. Germline BRCA mutations were not required (Ray-Coquard I et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA2).

As reported at ESMO, adding PARPi to bevacizumab maintenance provided a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 22.1 months, in comparison with 16.6 months for bevacizumab alone. The difference was statistically significant.

For patients with tumor BRCA mutations (tBRCAm), PFS was 37.2 months with olaparib vs. 21.7 months for placebo (HR, 0.31). The PFS benefit was even more impressive for homologous recombination deficient (HRD)–positive patients, inclusive of those with tBRCAm (PFS 37.2 months for PARPi vs. 17.7 months for placebo; and in the 152 HRD-positive patients without tBRCAm, (median PFS 28.1 months vs. 16.6 months; HR, 0.43).

The improved PFS in patients with tBRCAm is similar to that reported in the SOLO1 trial of olaparib monotherapy vs. chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2495-2505), but the PFS in the control arm was longer in PAOLA-1 than in SOLO1, perhaps because of the use of bevacizumab in PAOLA-1. PARPi did not affect tolerance to bevacizumab.

In PAOLA-1, the HRD-positive patients who lacked tBRCAm and, by extension, lacked germline BRCA mutations – a new population of patients – was identified who benefited substantially from maintenance PARPi in the first-line setting.
 

What this means in practice

PAOLA-1 demonstrates that PARPi can improve outcomes in first-line treatment – and in patients beyond those with germline BRCA mutations. As a result, PAOLA-1 potentially changes the standard of care for initial treatment of the respectable fraction of patients with previously untreated, advanced müllerian cancers who have either tBRCAm or HRD positive tumors.

Importantly, PAOLA-1 is one of many published trials that stimulates the discussion of cost vs. value for combinations of biologics. The incremental benefit from the second biologic (in this case PARPi) is almost never completely additive or supra-additive to the benefit associated with the first biologic (in this case, bevacizumab). In that regard, despite the fact that PARPi showed a PFS benefit in the intent-to-treat population overall, precisely defining the patient population that has the greatest benefit will facilitate the goal of getting the treatments of greatest “value for cost” to our patients in the most responsible way.

Additional research will hopefully define the relative contribution of bevacizumab to PARPi in patients who benefited so dramatically from PARPi in PAOLA-1.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I review two recent presentations at the European Society of Medical Oncology Congress regarding the expanded use of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in patients with advanced solid tumors, potentially broadening the indications for this important class of agents.

Metastatic CRPC

Perhaps 25% of prostate cancer patients have loss-of-function mutations – BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM – or alterations in homologous recombinant repair (HRR) genes. In the PROfound trial, men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had progressed on either abiraterone or enzalutamide and who had DNA-repair mutations were randomized to either olaparib (300 mg b.i.d.) or treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) with either abiraterone or enzalutamide plus prednisone (Hussain M et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA-12).

Two cohorts were enrolled. Cohort A included 245 men with BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM mutations, and cohort B included 142 men with other alterations (BARD1, BIRP1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD15B, RAD15C, RAD15D, or RAD54L). After disease progression, patients could cross over to receive PARPi, which more than 80% of patients eventually did.

Median radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort A was 7.39 months with PARPi, compared with 3.55 months with TPC, for a hazard ratio for progression on PARPi of 0.34 (P less than .0001). A significant benefit was seen for PARPi in the overall population (both cohorts), with a median radiographic PFS of 5.82 months va. 3.52 months, respectively (HR, 0.49; P less than .0001).

Among patients in cohort A, the objective response rate (ORR) was 33.3% with PARPi, compared with 2.3% for TPC, resulting in an odds ratio for ORR of 20.86 (P less than .0001).

PARPi demonstrated a longer time to pain progression in cohort A, with the median not reached, compared with 9.92 months with TPC (HR, 0.44; P = .0192). Perhaps because of the high proportion of TPC patients who eventually received PARPi, no statistically significant differences in overall survival have yet been seen.

 

What this means in practice

During my fellowship, a mentor taught that “because quality of life is generally better before progression than afterwards, PFS is a worthy endpoint in its own right.” For that reason, although I would have liked to see the data for cohort B alone, it appears worthwhile for physicians to make every effort to obtain PARPi. The difference in ORR, pain progression, and PFS at 12 months is clinically dramatic.

Of equal significance, however, is that PROfound is the first positive phase 3 biomarker-selected study evaluating a targeted treatment in patients with mCRPC. For prostate cancer – as for breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and several other cancers – the molecular biology and genetic background of our patients dictates the other tumors for which they and their family members are at risk, and expands the treatment armamentarium for them.

For those clinicians who needed to be convinced that “precision medicine” for prostate cancer patients was worthwhile, the PROfound trial should have a profound impact.
 

Advanced ovarian cancer

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial studied patients with stage III-IV ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who had surgery, platinum-taxane chemotherapy, and at least 3 months of bevacizumab. Patients were randomized to maintenance treatment with an additional 12 months of bevacizumab plus 24 months of PARPi with olaparib or placebo. Germline BRCA mutations were not required (Ray-Coquard I et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA2).

As reported at ESMO, adding PARPi to bevacizumab maintenance provided a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 22.1 months, in comparison with 16.6 months for bevacizumab alone. The difference was statistically significant.

For patients with tumor BRCA mutations (tBRCAm), PFS was 37.2 months with olaparib vs. 21.7 months for placebo (HR, 0.31). The PFS benefit was even more impressive for homologous recombination deficient (HRD)–positive patients, inclusive of those with tBRCAm (PFS 37.2 months for PARPi vs. 17.7 months for placebo; and in the 152 HRD-positive patients without tBRCAm, (median PFS 28.1 months vs. 16.6 months; HR, 0.43).

The improved PFS in patients with tBRCAm is similar to that reported in the SOLO1 trial of olaparib monotherapy vs. chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:2495-2505), but the PFS in the control arm was longer in PAOLA-1 than in SOLO1, perhaps because of the use of bevacizumab in PAOLA-1. PARPi did not affect tolerance to bevacizumab.

In PAOLA-1, the HRD-positive patients who lacked tBRCAm and, by extension, lacked germline BRCA mutations – a new population of patients – was identified who benefited substantially from maintenance PARPi in the first-line setting.
 

What this means in practice

PAOLA-1 demonstrates that PARPi can improve outcomes in first-line treatment – and in patients beyond those with germline BRCA mutations. As a result, PAOLA-1 potentially changes the standard of care for initial treatment of the respectable fraction of patients with previously untreated, advanced müllerian cancers who have either tBRCAm or HRD positive tumors.

Importantly, PAOLA-1 is one of many published trials that stimulates the discussion of cost vs. value for combinations of biologics. The incremental benefit from the second biologic (in this case PARPi) is almost never completely additive or supra-additive to the benefit associated with the first biologic (in this case, bevacizumab). In that regard, despite the fact that PARPi showed a PFS benefit in the intent-to-treat population overall, precisely defining the patient population that has the greatest benefit will facilitate the goal of getting the treatments of greatest “value for cost” to our patients in the most responsible way.

Additional research will hopefully define the relative contribution of bevacizumab to PARPi in patients who benefited so dramatically from PARPi in PAOLA-1.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who received opioids or benzodiazepines had a greater risk of hospitalization for respiratory-related adverse events, according to recent research from Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

sdominick/Getty Images

In addition, the risk of hospitalization because of respiratory events for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was greater when opioid and benzodiazepine medications were combined, compared with patients who did not take either medication, Jacques G. Baillargeon, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and community health at the University of Texas, Galveston, and colleagues wrote.

“Patients with COPD and their physicians should judiciously assess the risks and benefits of opioids and benzodiazepines, alone and in combination, and preferentially recommend nonopioid and nonbenzodiazepine approaches for pain, sleep, and anxiety management in patients with COPD,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers performed a case-control study of 3,232 Medicare beneficiary cases of COPD patients who were aged at least 66 years. Patients were included if they experienced a hospitalization related to a COPD-related adverse event with a respiratory diagnosis in 2014 and then matched to one or two control patients (total, 6,247 patients) based on age at hospitalization, gender, COPD medication, COPD complexity, obstructive sleep apnea, and socioeconomic status. COPD complexity was assigned to three levels (low, moderate, high) and calculated using the patient’s comorbid respiratory conditions and associated medical procedures in the 12 months prior to their hospitalization.

They found that, in the 30 days before COPD-related hospitalization, use of opioids was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.97), as was use of benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.66). When patients used both opioids and benzodiazepines, they had a significantly higher risk of hospitalization, compared with patients who did not use opioids or benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.94-2.77).

In the 60 days prior to hospitalization, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization among COPD patients who used opioids (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.47-1.88), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.24-1.67), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.93-2.67); at 90 days, this higher risk of hospitalization persisted among COPD patients taking opioids (aOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.40-1.78), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.88-2.59).

The researchers acknowledged that one potential limitation in the study was how COPD diagnoses were obtained through coding performed by clinicians instead of from laboratory testing. Confounding by COPD indication and severity; use of over-the-counter medication or opioids and benzodiazepines received illegally; and lack of analyses of potential confounders such as diet, alcohol use, smoking status and herbal supplement use were other limitations.

This study was supported by an award from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baillargeon had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Baillargeon JG et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201901-024OC.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who received opioids or benzodiazepines had a greater risk of hospitalization for respiratory-related adverse events, according to recent research from Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

sdominick/Getty Images

In addition, the risk of hospitalization because of respiratory events for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was greater when opioid and benzodiazepine medications were combined, compared with patients who did not take either medication, Jacques G. Baillargeon, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and community health at the University of Texas, Galveston, and colleagues wrote.

“Patients with COPD and their physicians should judiciously assess the risks and benefits of opioids and benzodiazepines, alone and in combination, and preferentially recommend nonopioid and nonbenzodiazepine approaches for pain, sleep, and anxiety management in patients with COPD,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers performed a case-control study of 3,232 Medicare beneficiary cases of COPD patients who were aged at least 66 years. Patients were included if they experienced a hospitalization related to a COPD-related adverse event with a respiratory diagnosis in 2014 and then matched to one or two control patients (total, 6,247 patients) based on age at hospitalization, gender, COPD medication, COPD complexity, obstructive sleep apnea, and socioeconomic status. COPD complexity was assigned to three levels (low, moderate, high) and calculated using the patient’s comorbid respiratory conditions and associated medical procedures in the 12 months prior to their hospitalization.

They found that, in the 30 days before COPD-related hospitalization, use of opioids was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.97), as was use of benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.66). When patients used both opioids and benzodiazepines, they had a significantly higher risk of hospitalization, compared with patients who did not use opioids or benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.94-2.77).

In the 60 days prior to hospitalization, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization among COPD patients who used opioids (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.47-1.88), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.24-1.67), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.93-2.67); at 90 days, this higher risk of hospitalization persisted among COPD patients taking opioids (aOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.40-1.78), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.88-2.59).

The researchers acknowledged that one potential limitation in the study was how COPD diagnoses were obtained through coding performed by clinicians instead of from laboratory testing. Confounding by COPD indication and severity; use of over-the-counter medication or opioids and benzodiazepines received illegally; and lack of analyses of potential confounders such as diet, alcohol use, smoking status and herbal supplement use were other limitations.

This study was supported by an award from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baillargeon had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Baillargeon JG et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201901-024OC.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who received opioids or benzodiazepines had a greater risk of hospitalization for respiratory-related adverse events, according to recent research from Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

sdominick/Getty Images

In addition, the risk of hospitalization because of respiratory events for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was greater when opioid and benzodiazepine medications were combined, compared with patients who did not take either medication, Jacques G. Baillargeon, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and community health at the University of Texas, Galveston, and colleagues wrote.

“Patients with COPD and their physicians should judiciously assess the risks and benefits of opioids and benzodiazepines, alone and in combination, and preferentially recommend nonopioid and nonbenzodiazepine approaches for pain, sleep, and anxiety management in patients with COPD,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers performed a case-control study of 3,232 Medicare beneficiary cases of COPD patients who were aged at least 66 years. Patients were included if they experienced a hospitalization related to a COPD-related adverse event with a respiratory diagnosis in 2014 and then matched to one or two control patients (total, 6,247 patients) based on age at hospitalization, gender, COPD medication, COPD complexity, obstructive sleep apnea, and socioeconomic status. COPD complexity was assigned to three levels (low, moderate, high) and calculated using the patient’s comorbid respiratory conditions and associated medical procedures in the 12 months prior to their hospitalization.

They found that, in the 30 days before COPD-related hospitalization, use of opioids was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.97), as was use of benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.66). When patients used both opioids and benzodiazepines, they had a significantly higher risk of hospitalization, compared with patients who did not use opioids or benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.94-2.77).

In the 60 days prior to hospitalization, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization among COPD patients who used opioids (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.47-1.88), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.24-1.67), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.93-2.67); at 90 days, this higher risk of hospitalization persisted among COPD patients taking opioids (aOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.40-1.78), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.88-2.59).

The researchers acknowledged that one potential limitation in the study was how COPD diagnoses were obtained through coding performed by clinicians instead of from laboratory testing. Confounding by COPD indication and severity; use of over-the-counter medication or opioids and benzodiazepines received illegally; and lack of analyses of potential confounders such as diet, alcohol use, smoking status and herbal supplement use were other limitations.

This study was supported by an award from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baillargeon had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Baillargeon JG et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201901-024OC.

STOCKHOLM – Early adolescence may be a period of heightened susceptibility to future development of multiple sclerosis (MS) resulting from exposure to pneumonia and other forms of lung inflammation, Scott Montgomery, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

This is speculative, he readily acknowledged, but it is a hypothesis supported by multiple lines of evidence provided by separate Swedish national health care registry studies he has led that showed associations between pneumonia or infectious mononucleosis occurring in early adolescence and increased risk of later MS.

These findings are consistent with the well-established observations that two other causes of lung irritation – cigarette smoking and exposure to organic solvents – are also linked to increased risk of MS (Neurology. 2018 Jul 31;91[5]:e455-62), noted Dr. Montgomery, head of the clinical epidemiology research group at Örebro (Sweden) University.

Moreover, he and his coinvestigators also found in yet another Swedish national registry cohort study that one concussion during adolescence was independently associated with a statistically significant 1.22-fold increased risk of later MS, while two or more were linked to a 2.33-fold increased risk. In contrast, concussions occurring before age 11 years were not associated with any increased risk of MS, which suggests an age-defined period of susceptibility (Ann Neurol. 2017 Oct;82[4]:554-61).

“There seems to be greater brain resilience in childhood as compared to adolescence,” Dr. Montgomery commented.

The new Swedish registry pneumonia study included 6,109 Swedish MS patients and 49,479 controls matched for age, gender, and locale. In an analysis adjusted for education level and history of infectious mononucleosis, history of having pneumonia at age 11-15 years was independently associated with a 2.8-fold increased risk of subsequent MS. Pneumonia occurring at age 16-20 years was associated with a more modest 1.38-fold increased risk, which did not achieve statistical significance, while pneumonia up to age 5 years or at age 6-10 years conferred no increased risk. The investigators restricted their analysis to cases of pneumonia occurring up to age 20 years because that is younger than the typical age of MS onset. The age restriction sidestepped the potential for confounding by reverse causation since it is known that pneumonia occurs with increased frequency in patients with MS.

Because MS patients also have an increased risk of urinary tract infections, Dr. Montgomery and coinvestigators also analyzed the same pediatric data set for UTI rates broken down by 5-year age groups. Rates were similar in individuals who later developed MS and in controls, which suggests that the observed increase in MS risk associated with pneumonia in early adolescence was not an expression of an MS prodromal illness, he explained.

The investigators focused on pneumonia in childhood and adolescence as a potential trigger for MS because pneumonia results in more profound and prolonged inflammation than do other common respiratory illnesses. For example, pneumonia has been shown to be linked to increased risks of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease for up to 5 years after the infection.

Developmentally, age 11-15 years is a period defined by peripubertal reorganization and synaptogenesis, while synaptic pruning and axonal myelination are on the agenda at age 16-20 years, Dr. Montgomery observed.

The study of infectious mononucleosis as a potential risk factor for MS included 4,527 Swedish MS patients and 3.2 million controls, all born during 1970-2000 and followed until 2014. In this analysis, infectious mononucleosis occurring at age 11-15 years was associated with the greatest risk of subsequent MS, with an associated 3.47-fold greater risk of the neurologic disease versus that seen in patients who did not have infectious mononucleosis at age 11-15 years

“It does look like a causal association between Epstein-Barr virus infection and subsequent MS,” according to Dr. Montgomery.

He noted that a plausible mechanism by which lung inflammation could predispose future MS has been put forth by German investigators. Using an animal model, they demonstrated that autoreactive T cells are prepared in bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue and attain a migratory profile allowing them to cross the blood-brain barrier and induce CNS autoimmune disease (Nature. 2012 Aug 30;488[7413]:675-9).

All of this, as Dr. Montgomery emphasized, is speculative at this point in regard to MS pathogenesis. What is not speculative, he continued, is the solid evidence that infection-related mortality after diagnosis of MS has gone down substantially in the current era of newer disease-modifying treatments, as he and his coinvestigators have demonstrated (Neurology. 2017 Aug 8;89[6]:555-62).

“People with MS, compared to the general population, are still at increased risk, but not nearly as much as the infection-related mortality risk present back in the 1960s-80s. So things have improved somewhat,” Dr. Montgomery said.

Which MS patients are at increased risk for mortality caused by infection? His Swedish national registry research demonstrates that the risk is essentially confined to patients with secondary or primary progressive MS or an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 6 or more.

Another new study he presented at the meeting focused on the types of infections that are more common in a contemporary MS population than in MS-free individuals. This Swedish national cohort study included 6,602 patients diagnosed with MS during 2008-2016 and 61,828 age-, sex-, and location-matched controls. Infections serious enough to have resulted in hospitalization occurred 2.59 times more frequently in the MS population. The risk of meningitis and encephalitis was increased 6.16-fold, opportunistic infections were 2.72-fold more frequent, the risk of urinary tract and kidney infections was increased 2.44-fold, herpes virus infections were increased 2.32-fold, and the combined rate of pneumonia and influenza was roughly double that seen in the matched general population.

Dr. Montgomery reported receiving research funding from F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and serving on an advisory board for IQVIA.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Montgomery S. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 270.
 

STOCKHOLM – Early adolescence may be a period of heightened susceptibility to future development of multiple sclerosis (MS) resulting from exposure to pneumonia and other forms of lung inflammation, Scott Montgomery, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

This is speculative, he readily acknowledged, but it is a hypothesis supported by multiple lines of evidence provided by separate Swedish national health care registry studies he has led that showed associations between pneumonia or infectious mononucleosis occurring in early adolescence and increased risk of later MS.

These findings are consistent with the well-established observations that two other causes of lung irritation – cigarette smoking and exposure to organic solvents – are also linked to increased risk of MS (Neurology. 2018 Jul 31;91[5]:e455-62), noted Dr. Montgomery, head of the clinical epidemiology research group at Örebro (Sweden) University.

Moreover, he and his coinvestigators also found in yet another Swedish national registry cohort study that one concussion during adolescence was independently associated with a statistically significant 1.22-fold increased risk of later MS, while two or more were linked to a 2.33-fold increased risk. In contrast, concussions occurring before age 11 years were not associated with any increased risk of MS, which suggests an age-defined period of susceptibility (Ann Neurol. 2017 Oct;82[4]:554-61).

“There seems to be greater brain resilience in childhood as compared to adolescence,” Dr. Montgomery commented.

The new Swedish registry pneumonia study included 6,109 Swedish MS patients and 49,479 controls matched for age, gender, and locale. In an analysis adjusted for education level and history of infectious mononucleosis, history of having pneumonia at age 11-15 years was independently associated with a 2.8-fold increased risk of subsequent MS. Pneumonia occurring at age 16-20 years was associated with a more modest 1.38-fold increased risk, which did not achieve statistical significance, while pneumonia up to age 5 years or at age 6-10 years conferred no increased risk. The investigators restricted their analysis to cases of pneumonia occurring up to age 20 years because that is younger than the typical age of MS onset. The age restriction sidestepped the potential for confounding by reverse causation since it is known that pneumonia occurs with increased frequency in patients with MS.

Because MS patients also have an increased risk of urinary tract infections, Dr. Montgomery and coinvestigators also analyzed the same pediatric data set for UTI rates broken down by 5-year age groups. Rates were similar in individuals who later developed MS and in controls, which suggests that the observed increase in MS risk associated with pneumonia in early adolescence was not an expression of an MS prodromal illness, he explained.

The investigators focused on pneumonia in childhood and adolescence as a potential trigger for MS because pneumonia results in more profound and prolonged inflammation than do other common respiratory illnesses. For example, pneumonia has been shown to be linked to increased risks of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease for up to 5 years after the infection.

Developmentally, age 11-15 years is a period defined by peripubertal reorganization and synaptogenesis, while synaptic pruning and axonal myelination are on the agenda at age 16-20 years, Dr. Montgomery observed.

The study of infectious mononucleosis as a potential risk factor for MS included 4,527 Swedish MS patients and 3.2 million controls, all born during 1970-2000 and followed until 2014. In this analysis, infectious mononucleosis occurring at age 11-15 years was associated with the greatest risk of subsequent MS, with an associated 3.47-fold greater risk of the neurologic disease versus that seen in patients who did not have infectious mononucleosis at age 11-15 years

“It does look like a causal association between Epstein-Barr virus infection and subsequent MS,” according to Dr. Montgomery.

He noted that a plausible mechanism by which lung inflammation could predispose future MS has been put forth by German investigators. Using an animal model, they demonstrated that autoreactive T cells are prepared in bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue and attain a migratory profile allowing them to cross the blood-brain barrier and induce CNS autoimmune disease (Nature. 2012 Aug 30;488[7413]:675-9).

All of this, as Dr. Montgomery emphasized, is speculative at this point in regard to MS pathogenesis. What is not speculative, he continued, is the solid evidence that infection-related mortality after diagnosis of MS has gone down substantially in the current era of newer disease-modifying treatments, as he and his coinvestigators have demonstrated (Neurology. 2017 Aug 8;89[6]:555-62).

“People with MS, compared to the general population, are still at increased risk, but not nearly as much as the infection-related mortality risk present back in the 1960s-80s. So things have improved somewhat,” Dr. Montgomery said.

Which MS patients are at increased risk for mortality caused by infection? His Swedish national registry research demonstrates that the risk is essentially confined to patients with secondary or primary progressive MS or an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 6 or more.

Another new study he presented at the meeting focused on the types of infections that are more common in a contemporary MS population than in MS-free individuals. This Swedish national cohort study included 6,602 patients diagnosed with MS during 2008-2016 and 61,828 age-, sex-, and location-matched controls. Infections serious enough to have resulted in hospitalization occurred 2.59 times more frequently in the MS population. The risk of meningitis and encephalitis was increased 6.16-fold, opportunistic infections were 2.72-fold more frequent, the risk of urinary tract and kidney infections was increased 2.44-fold, herpes virus infections were increased 2.32-fold, and the combined rate of pneumonia and influenza was roughly double that seen in the matched general population.

Dr. Montgomery reported receiving research funding from F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and serving on an advisory board for IQVIA.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Montgomery S. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 270.
 

STOCKHOLM – Early adolescence may be a period of heightened susceptibility to future development of multiple sclerosis (MS) resulting from exposure to pneumonia and other forms of lung inflammation, Scott Montgomery, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

This is speculative, he readily acknowledged, but it is a hypothesis supported by multiple lines of evidence provided by separate Swedish national health care registry studies he has led that showed associations between pneumonia or infectious mononucleosis occurring in early adolescence and increased risk of later MS.

These findings are consistent with the well-established observations that two other causes of lung irritation – cigarette smoking and exposure to organic solvents – are also linked to increased risk of MS (Neurology. 2018 Jul 31;91[5]:e455-62), noted Dr. Montgomery, head of the clinical epidemiology research group at Örebro (Sweden) University.

Moreover, he and his coinvestigators also found in yet another Swedish national registry cohort study that one concussion during adolescence was independently associated with a statistically significant 1.22-fold increased risk of later MS, while two or more were linked to a 2.33-fold increased risk. In contrast, concussions occurring before age 11 years were not associated with any increased risk of MS, which suggests an age-defined period of susceptibility (Ann Neurol. 2017 Oct;82[4]:554-61).

“There seems to be greater brain resilience in childhood as compared to adolescence,” Dr. Montgomery commented.

The new Swedish registry pneumonia study included 6,109 Swedish MS patients and 49,479 controls matched for age, gender, and locale. In an analysis adjusted for education level and history of infectious mononucleosis, history of having pneumonia at age 11-15 years was independently associated with a 2.8-fold increased risk of subsequent MS. Pneumonia occurring at age 16-20 years was associated with a more modest 1.38-fold increased risk, which did not achieve statistical significance, while pneumonia up to age 5 years or at age 6-10 years conferred no increased risk. The investigators restricted their analysis to cases of pneumonia occurring up to age 20 years because that is younger than the typical age of MS onset. The age restriction sidestepped the potential for confounding by reverse causation since it is known that pneumonia occurs with increased frequency in patients with MS.

Because MS patients also have an increased risk of urinary tract infections, Dr. Montgomery and coinvestigators also analyzed the same pediatric data set for UTI rates broken down by 5-year age groups. Rates were similar in individuals who later developed MS and in controls, which suggests that the observed increase in MS risk associated with pneumonia in early adolescence was not an expression of an MS prodromal illness, he explained.

The investigators focused on pneumonia in childhood and adolescence as a potential trigger for MS because pneumonia results in more profound and prolonged inflammation than do other common respiratory illnesses. For example, pneumonia has been shown to be linked to increased risks of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease for up to 5 years after the infection.

Developmentally, age 11-15 years is a period defined by peripubertal reorganization and synaptogenesis, while synaptic pruning and axonal myelination are on the agenda at age 16-20 years, Dr. Montgomery observed.

The study of infectious mononucleosis as a potential risk factor for MS included 4,527 Swedish MS patients and 3.2 million controls, all born during 1970-2000 and followed until 2014. In this analysis, infectious mononucleosis occurring at age 11-15 years was associated with the greatest risk of subsequent MS, with an associated 3.47-fold greater risk of the neurologic disease versus that seen in patients who did not have infectious mononucleosis at age 11-15 years

“It does look like a causal association between Epstein-Barr virus infection and subsequent MS,” according to Dr. Montgomery.

He noted that a plausible mechanism by which lung inflammation could predispose future MS has been put forth by German investigators. Using an animal model, they demonstrated that autoreactive T cells are prepared in bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue and attain a migratory profile allowing them to cross the blood-brain barrier and induce CNS autoimmune disease (Nature. 2012 Aug 30;488[7413]:675-9).

All of this, as Dr. Montgomery emphasized, is speculative at this point in regard to MS pathogenesis. What is not speculative, he continued, is the solid evidence that infection-related mortality after diagnosis of MS has gone down substantially in the current era of newer disease-modifying treatments, as he and his coinvestigators have demonstrated (Neurology. 2017 Aug 8;89[6]:555-62).

“People with MS, compared to the general population, are still at increased risk, but not nearly as much as the infection-related mortality risk present back in the 1960s-80s. So things have improved somewhat,” Dr. Montgomery said.

Which MS patients are at increased risk for mortality caused by infection? His Swedish national registry research demonstrates that the risk is essentially confined to patients with secondary or primary progressive MS or an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 6 or more.

Another new study he presented at the meeting focused on the types of infections that are more common in a contemporary MS population than in MS-free individuals. This Swedish national cohort study included 6,602 patients diagnosed with MS during 2008-2016 and 61,828 age-, sex-, and location-matched controls. Infections serious enough to have resulted in hospitalization occurred 2.59 times more frequently in the MS population. The risk of meningitis and encephalitis was increased 6.16-fold, opportunistic infections were 2.72-fold more frequent, the risk of urinary tract and kidney infections was increased 2.44-fold, herpes virus infections were increased 2.32-fold, and the combined rate of pneumonia and influenza was roughly double that seen in the matched general population.

Dr. Montgomery reported receiving research funding from F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and serving on an advisory board for IQVIA.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Montgomery S. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 270.
 

Whether a board member for the American Academy of Dermatology and the AAD Association (AAD/A) violated his fiduciary duties by launching an organization that offered board certification to physician assistants (PAs) will soon be decided by AAD members.

In mid-October, the AAD/A board of directors unanimously agreed to present AAD members with a resolution to remove Scott M. Dinehart, MD, from his position on the board. AAD President George J. Hruza, MD, said Dr. Dinehart violated his duties when he became sole organizer of the American Board of Dermatology Physician Assistants (ABDPA), an organization that planned to offer board certification to PAs who work with dermatologists, according to a message from Dr. Hruza to members. The use of the words “American Board of Dermatology” in the ABDPA name created confusion to patients and threatened to undermine the value of ABD certification held by AAD/A fellows, Dr. Hruza said.

“Dr. Dinehart’s action to incorporate and organize the for-profit entity ABDPA, LLC., is in direct contradiction to the AAD’s Truth in Advertising and Professional Disclosure policy that states that practitioners should not advertise that they are board certified unless they are certified by an ABMS/AOA [American Board of Medical Specialties or American Osteopathic Association] medical board, such as the American Board of Dermatology,” Dr. Hruza said in an interview with Dermatology News. “This for-profit venture would enable physician assistants to advertise themselves as board certified. The [AAD/A] board in its unanimous decision deemed that the new ABDPA was set up to potentially mislead patients into thinking that physician assistants with this certification would have training and experience equivalent to an ABD-certified dermatologist. This is contrary to the AAD/A’s position on this matter. As such, Dr. Dinehart’s involvement in forming and organizing the ABDPA violated his fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the AAD/A and to abide by AAD/A policies.”

In a letter to AAD members, Dr. Dinehart called the removal vote a “drastic measure” and said he has done nothing to justify dismissal from the AAD/A board. The ABDPA was intended to improve patient care by establishing certain educational, training, and professional standards for the growing number of physician assistants in dermatology, Dr. Dinehart wrote. That mission was not in conflict with AAD’s values, but rather, the ABDPA would have furthered AAD’s purpose “to promote the highest standards in allied health professionals and services as they relate to dermatology.”

After learning of the board’s concerns, Dr. Dinehart said he discontinued his relationship with the ABDPA and ensured its operations had ended out of respect for the academy. He believes the matter could have been handled much differently.

“I did not violate any bylaws,” Dr. Dinehart said in an interview with Dermatology News. “While I understand that there are certain members of the AAD that personally oppose the growing use of physician assistants in dermatology practices, it is a common practice among many AAD members, and it is not contrary to or detrimental to any of the purposes of the AAD.”

Dr. Dinehart contends he did not run afoul of the AAD/A’s position statement on Truth in Advertising and Professional Credential Disclosure because the statement pertains to AAD/A members and prohibits members from advertising board certifications by nonapproved boards. He emphasized that PAs are not members and said he would never represent or advertise a physician assistant as having a certification equivalent to a board-certified dermatologist or being capable of equivalent credentials.

In addition, he said his involvement with the new organization did not conflict with the AAD’s Practice of Dermatology: Protecting and Preserving Patient Safety and Quality Care position statement, which opposes the independent or unsupervised practice of dermatology procedures by nonphysicians.

“Neither the ADBPA nor the certification it intended to offer would have allowed physician assistants to engage in the independent or unsupervised practice of specific dermatology procedures, and any physician assistant who did so would be subject to the same repercussions that currently exist,” Dr. Dinehart said in the interview.

The ABDPA was formed legally at the end of September and announced its official launch on Oct. 7. The new organization immediately drew criticism from dermatologists and triggered an online petition that denounced the group and called for Dr Dinehart’s removal from the AAD/A board. The petition, started by an anonymous dermatologist, states Dr. Dinehart’s concurrent relationships with the AAD and the ABDPA represent a major conflict of interest. As of Oct. 24, the petition had collected 2,496 signatures.

Monica Madray, MD, a dermatologist based in Georgetown, Tex., who signed the petition, said the ABDPA further muddied the waters in an already confusing world of “providers” and non–dermatology boarded physicians practicing and advertising themselves as dermatologists.

“Patients truly don’t know the difference in training between physicians and midlevels, and by ‘board certifying’ PAs in dermatology, it gets much more confusing,” Dr. Madray said in an interview. “I also think there was a huge financial conflict of interest for Dr. Dinehart to start and run this board as he oversees many midlevels. Frankly, it didn’t pass the sniff test.”

Vivian Bucay, MD, a dermatologist based in San Antonio who signed the petition, said that, if Dr. Dinehart was interested in starting an organization such as the ABDPA, he should have first presented the idea to the AAD/A board and asked for feedback.

“This came [to light] after a press release,” Dr. Bucay said in an interview. “I don’t have an issue with trying to improve and set the bar for what dermatology physician assistants should do. It’s the manner in which it was gone about. In this day and age, we have to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If we all have to do that as members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery or members of the AAD when presenting for continuing medical education, then why would there not be the same standard for a board member to disclose a conflict of interest?”

Dr. Dinehart for his part said the board never gave him an opportunity to respond to its accusations or share his side of the story before initiating the removal vote.

“The board should not have been pressured by a vocal minority of the membership, rushed to judgment, and expedited a special removal vote less than 2 weeks after the board claims it first became aware of the formation of ABDPA,” he said in the interview. “The board should have ... evaluated the alleged conflict and provided me a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged conflict as provided by the AAD/A’s conflict of interest rules. Had the board allowed me that opportunity, as required, this whole situation could have been resolved.”

Dr. Hruza, however, said the board’s actions came after reviewing evidence with Dr. Dinehart in private, which allowed him to make a statement and provided him a chance to answer questions from the board. He was also afforded several opportunities to resign, which he declined, Dr. Hruza said in the interview.

“I regret that we have been put in this difficult position and that the question must be put to the membership for a painful vote,” Dr. Hruza said. “The academy has a lot of important work to do to advocate for our members and our patients. This issue has been an unfortunate distraction from that important work.”

Daniel M. Siegel, MD, a New York–based dermatologist and former AAD president, said in an interview with Dermatology News that he plans to vote to keep Dr. Dinehart on the board. Dr. Dinehart has been a dedicated advocate for the specialty for more than 30 years and his recent misstep does not rise to the level of board removal, Dr. Siegel said. A social media environment that easily enables people to get fired up about almost any subject and quickly stoke anger in others contributed to overreaction of the situation, he added.

“In retrospect, it was not in the best interests of the AAD, but it was nothing criminal,” Dr. Siegel said in the interview. “He had a business idea, it got a lot negative feedback, and he did the right thing about it. Taking such an aggressive punitive approach for a transgression that was fairly minor is a bad precedent to set.”

Voting on Dr. Dinehart’s position opened on Oct. 21 and will close on Oct. 29. A removal decision requires a two-thirds vote by at least 10% of the voting membership.

[email protected]

Whether a board member for the American Academy of Dermatology and the AAD Association (AAD/A) violated his fiduciary duties by launching an organization that offered board certification to physician assistants (PAs) will soon be decided by AAD members.

In mid-October, the AAD/A board of directors unanimously agreed to present AAD members with a resolution to remove Scott M. Dinehart, MD, from his position on the board. AAD President George J. Hruza, MD, said Dr. Dinehart violated his duties when he became sole organizer of the American Board of Dermatology Physician Assistants (ABDPA), an organization that planned to offer board certification to PAs who work with dermatologists, according to a message from Dr. Hruza to members. The use of the words “American Board of Dermatology” in the ABDPA name created confusion to patients and threatened to undermine the value of ABD certification held by AAD/A fellows, Dr. Hruza said.

“Dr. Dinehart’s action to incorporate and organize the for-profit entity ABDPA, LLC., is in direct contradiction to the AAD’s Truth in Advertising and Professional Disclosure policy that states that practitioners should not advertise that they are board certified unless they are certified by an ABMS/AOA [American Board of Medical Specialties or American Osteopathic Association] medical board, such as the American Board of Dermatology,” Dr. Hruza said in an interview with Dermatology News. “This for-profit venture would enable physician assistants to advertise themselves as board certified. The [AAD/A] board in its unanimous decision deemed that the new ABDPA was set up to potentially mislead patients into thinking that physician assistants with this certification would have training and experience equivalent to an ABD-certified dermatologist. This is contrary to the AAD/A’s position on this matter. As such, Dr. Dinehart’s involvement in forming and organizing the ABDPA violated his fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the AAD/A and to abide by AAD/A policies.”

In a letter to AAD members, Dr. Dinehart called the removal vote a “drastic measure” and said he has done nothing to justify dismissal from the AAD/A board. The ABDPA was intended to improve patient care by establishing certain educational, training, and professional standards for the growing number of physician assistants in dermatology, Dr. Dinehart wrote. That mission was not in conflict with AAD’s values, but rather, the ABDPA would have furthered AAD’s purpose “to promote the highest standards in allied health professionals and services as they relate to dermatology.”

After learning of the board’s concerns, Dr. Dinehart said he discontinued his relationship with the ABDPA and ensured its operations had ended out of respect for the academy. He believes the matter could have been handled much differently.

“I did not violate any bylaws,” Dr. Dinehart said in an interview with Dermatology News. “While I understand that there are certain members of the AAD that personally oppose the growing use of physician assistants in dermatology practices, it is a common practice among many AAD members, and it is not contrary to or detrimental to any of the purposes of the AAD.”

Dr. Dinehart contends he did not run afoul of the AAD/A’s position statement on Truth in Advertising and Professional Credential Disclosure because the statement pertains to AAD/A members and prohibits members from advertising board certifications by nonapproved boards. He emphasized that PAs are not members and said he would never represent or advertise a physician assistant as having a certification equivalent to a board-certified dermatologist or being capable of equivalent credentials.

In addition, he said his involvement with the new organization did not conflict with the AAD’s Practice of Dermatology: Protecting and Preserving Patient Safety and Quality Care position statement, which opposes the independent or unsupervised practice of dermatology procedures by nonphysicians.

“Neither the ADBPA nor the certification it intended to offer would have allowed physician assistants to engage in the independent or unsupervised practice of specific dermatology procedures, and any physician assistant who did so would be subject to the same repercussions that currently exist,” Dr. Dinehart said in the interview.

The ABDPA was formed legally at the end of September and announced its official launch on Oct. 7. The new organization immediately drew criticism from dermatologists and triggered an online petition that denounced the group and called for Dr Dinehart’s removal from the AAD/A board. The petition, started by an anonymous dermatologist, states Dr. Dinehart’s concurrent relationships with the AAD and the ABDPA represent a major conflict of interest. As of Oct. 24, the petition had collected 2,496 signatures.

Monica Madray, MD, a dermatologist based in Georgetown, Tex., who signed the petition, said the ABDPA further muddied the waters in an already confusing world of “providers” and non–dermatology boarded physicians practicing and advertising themselves as dermatologists.

“Patients truly don’t know the difference in training between physicians and midlevels, and by ‘board certifying’ PAs in dermatology, it gets much more confusing,” Dr. Madray said in an interview. “I also think there was a huge financial conflict of interest for Dr. Dinehart to start and run this board as he oversees many midlevels. Frankly, it didn’t pass the sniff test.”

Vivian Bucay, MD, a dermatologist based in San Antonio who signed the petition, said that, if Dr. Dinehart was interested in starting an organization such as the ABDPA, he should have first presented the idea to the AAD/A board and asked for feedback.

“This came [to light] after a press release,” Dr. Bucay said in an interview. “I don’t have an issue with trying to improve and set the bar for what dermatology physician assistants should do. It’s the manner in which it was gone about. In this day and age, we have to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If we all have to do that as members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery or members of the AAD when presenting for continuing medical education, then why would there not be the same standard for a board member to disclose a conflict of interest?”

Dr. Dinehart for his part said the board never gave him an opportunity to respond to its accusations or share his side of the story before initiating the removal vote.

“The board should not have been pressured by a vocal minority of the membership, rushed to judgment, and expedited a special removal vote less than 2 weeks after the board claims it first became aware of the formation of ABDPA,” he said in the interview. “The board should have ... evaluated the alleged conflict and provided me a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged conflict as provided by the AAD/A’s conflict of interest rules. Had the board allowed me that opportunity, as required, this whole situation could have been resolved.”

Dr. Hruza, however, said the board’s actions came after reviewing evidence with Dr. Dinehart in private, which allowed him to make a statement and provided him a chance to answer questions from the board. He was also afforded several opportunities to resign, which he declined, Dr. Hruza said in the interview.

“I regret that we have been put in this difficult position and that the question must be put to the membership for a painful vote,” Dr. Hruza said. “The academy has a lot of important work to do to advocate for our members and our patients. This issue has been an unfortunate distraction from that important work.”

Daniel M. Siegel, MD, a New York–based dermatologist and former AAD president, said in an interview with Dermatology News that he plans to vote to keep Dr. Dinehart on the board. Dr. Dinehart has been a dedicated advocate for the specialty for more than 30 years and his recent misstep does not rise to the level of board removal, Dr. Siegel said. A social media environment that easily enables people to get fired up about almost any subject and quickly stoke anger in others contributed to overreaction of the situation, he added.

“In retrospect, it was not in the best interests of the AAD, but it was nothing criminal,” Dr. Siegel said in the interview. “He had a business idea, it got a lot negative feedback, and he did the right thing about it. Taking such an aggressive punitive approach for a transgression that was fairly minor is a bad precedent to set.”

Voting on Dr. Dinehart’s position opened on Oct. 21 and will close on Oct. 29. A removal decision requires a two-thirds vote by at least 10% of the voting membership.

[email protected]

Whether a board member for the American Academy of Dermatology and the AAD Association (AAD/A) violated his fiduciary duties by launching an organization that offered board certification to physician assistants (PAs) will soon be decided by AAD members.

In mid-October, the AAD/A board of directors unanimously agreed to present AAD members with a resolution to remove Scott M. Dinehart, MD, from his position on the board. AAD President George J. Hruza, MD, said Dr. Dinehart violated his duties when he became sole organizer of the American Board of Dermatology Physician Assistants (ABDPA), an organization that planned to offer board certification to PAs who work with dermatologists, according to a message from Dr. Hruza to members. The use of the words “American Board of Dermatology” in the ABDPA name created confusion to patients and threatened to undermine the value of ABD certification held by AAD/A fellows, Dr. Hruza said.

“Dr. Dinehart’s action to incorporate and organize the for-profit entity ABDPA, LLC., is in direct contradiction to the AAD’s Truth in Advertising and Professional Disclosure policy that states that practitioners should not advertise that they are board certified unless they are certified by an ABMS/AOA [American Board of Medical Specialties or American Osteopathic Association] medical board, such as the American Board of Dermatology,” Dr. Hruza said in an interview with Dermatology News. “This for-profit venture would enable physician assistants to advertise themselves as board certified. The [AAD/A] board in its unanimous decision deemed that the new ABDPA was set up to potentially mislead patients into thinking that physician assistants with this certification would have training and experience equivalent to an ABD-certified dermatologist. This is contrary to the AAD/A’s position on this matter. As such, Dr. Dinehart’s involvement in forming and organizing the ABDPA violated his fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the AAD/A and to abide by AAD/A policies.”

In a letter to AAD members, Dr. Dinehart called the removal vote a “drastic measure” and said he has done nothing to justify dismissal from the AAD/A board. The ABDPA was intended to improve patient care by establishing certain educational, training, and professional standards for the growing number of physician assistants in dermatology, Dr. Dinehart wrote. That mission was not in conflict with AAD’s values, but rather, the ABDPA would have furthered AAD’s purpose “to promote the highest standards in allied health professionals and services as they relate to dermatology.”

After learning of the board’s concerns, Dr. Dinehart said he discontinued his relationship with the ABDPA and ensured its operations had ended out of respect for the academy. He believes the matter could have been handled much differently.

“I did not violate any bylaws,” Dr. Dinehart said in an interview with Dermatology News. “While I understand that there are certain members of the AAD that personally oppose the growing use of physician assistants in dermatology practices, it is a common practice among many AAD members, and it is not contrary to or detrimental to any of the purposes of the AAD.”

Dr. Dinehart contends he did not run afoul of the AAD/A’s position statement on Truth in Advertising and Professional Credential Disclosure because the statement pertains to AAD/A members and prohibits members from advertising board certifications by nonapproved boards. He emphasized that PAs are not members and said he would never represent or advertise a physician assistant as having a certification equivalent to a board-certified dermatologist or being capable of equivalent credentials.

In addition, he said his involvement with the new organization did not conflict with the AAD’s Practice of Dermatology: Protecting and Preserving Patient Safety and Quality Care position statement, which opposes the independent or unsupervised practice of dermatology procedures by nonphysicians.

“Neither the ADBPA nor the certification it intended to offer would have allowed physician assistants to engage in the independent or unsupervised practice of specific dermatology procedures, and any physician assistant who did so would be subject to the same repercussions that currently exist,” Dr. Dinehart said in the interview.

The ABDPA was formed legally at the end of September and announced its official launch on Oct. 7. The new organization immediately drew criticism from dermatologists and triggered an online petition that denounced the group and called for Dr Dinehart’s removal from the AAD/A board. The petition, started by an anonymous dermatologist, states Dr. Dinehart’s concurrent relationships with the AAD and the ABDPA represent a major conflict of interest. As of Oct. 24, the petition had collected 2,496 signatures.

Monica Madray, MD, a dermatologist based in Georgetown, Tex., who signed the petition, said the ABDPA further muddied the waters in an already confusing world of “providers” and non–dermatology boarded physicians practicing and advertising themselves as dermatologists.

“Patients truly don’t know the difference in training between physicians and midlevels, and by ‘board certifying’ PAs in dermatology, it gets much more confusing,” Dr. Madray said in an interview. “I also think there was a huge financial conflict of interest for Dr. Dinehart to start and run this board as he oversees many midlevels. Frankly, it didn’t pass the sniff test.”

Vivian Bucay, MD, a dermatologist based in San Antonio who signed the petition, said that, if Dr. Dinehart was interested in starting an organization such as the ABDPA, he should have first presented the idea to the AAD/A board and asked for feedback.

“This came [to light] after a press release,” Dr. Bucay said in an interview. “I don’t have an issue with trying to improve and set the bar for what dermatology physician assistants should do. It’s the manner in which it was gone about. In this day and age, we have to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If we all have to do that as members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery or members of the AAD when presenting for continuing medical education, then why would there not be the same standard for a board member to disclose a conflict of interest?”

Dr. Dinehart for his part said the board never gave him an opportunity to respond to its accusations or share his side of the story before initiating the removal vote.

“The board should not have been pressured by a vocal minority of the membership, rushed to judgment, and expedited a special removal vote less than 2 weeks after the board claims it first became aware of the formation of ABDPA,” he said in the interview. “The board should have ... evaluated the alleged conflict and provided me a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged conflict as provided by the AAD/A’s conflict of interest rules. Had the board allowed me that opportunity, as required, this whole situation could have been resolved.”

Dr. Hruza, however, said the board’s actions came after reviewing evidence with Dr. Dinehart in private, which allowed him to make a statement and provided him a chance to answer questions from the board. He was also afforded several opportunities to resign, which he declined, Dr. Hruza said in the interview.

“I regret that we have been put in this difficult position and that the question must be put to the membership for a painful vote,” Dr. Hruza said. “The academy has a lot of important work to do to advocate for our members and our patients. This issue has been an unfortunate distraction from that important work.”

Daniel M. Siegel, MD, a New York–based dermatologist and former AAD president, said in an interview with Dermatology News that he plans to vote to keep Dr. Dinehart on the board. Dr. Dinehart has been a dedicated advocate for the specialty for more than 30 years and his recent misstep does not rise to the level of board removal, Dr. Siegel said. A social media environment that easily enables people to get fired up about almost any subject and quickly stoke anger in others contributed to overreaction of the situation, he added.

“In retrospect, it was not in the best interests of the AAD, but it was nothing criminal,” Dr. Siegel said in the interview. “He had a business idea, it got a lot negative feedback, and he did the right thing about it. Taking such an aggressive punitive approach for a transgression that was fairly minor is a bad precedent to set.”

Voting on Dr. Dinehart’s position opened on Oct. 21 and will close on Oct. 29. A removal decision requires a two-thirds vote by at least 10% of the voting membership.

[email protected]

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – New daily persistent headache (NDPH) is relatively common among pediatric patients presenting to a headache clinic, according to research presented at the 48th national meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Most children with NDPH fulfill criteria for its migraine subtype, and one-third of pediatric patients with NDPH have comorbid medication overuse headache (MOH).

NDPH is defined as a daily, unremitting headache that lasts for at least 3 months. “Not many studies on NDPH focus on pediatrics,” said Emily Pierce, from Children’s National Medical Center in Washington. NDPH “is considered to be one of the most intractable headaches in children. Children are able to tell that they’ve had this different type of headache because there’s some kind of onset that is very memorable.”

Ms. Pierce and colleagues conducted an observational study to describe the characteristics of NDPH in pediatric patients who presented to a headache program at a tertiary referral center. The researchers included pediatric patients who visited the headache clinic at Children’s National Medical Center between 2016 and 2018 in their analysis. All patients were enrolled in patient registry that had been approved by an independent review board. Ms. Pierce and colleagues queried the registry for NDPH and reviewed these records to examine participants’ clinical presentations.

The investigators identified 3,260 patient encounters during the study period. Of these encounters, 454 patients (13.9%) were identified as having NDPH. Patients with NDPH were predominantly female (78%) and white (72%). The median age of the sample was 14.8 years.

The frontal head region was the most common location of headache pain, which often had a throbbing quality and was associated with photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and decreased activity. The median pain intensity was 6 of 10. Approximately 72% of patients had tried abortive medication, and 56% of patients had failed at least one abortive medication. Excedrin, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen were among the common failed abortive medications.

Furthermore, 36% of patients were diagnosed with MOH. The most commonly overused medication was ibuprofen. MOH “is also considered to be intractable for patients with NDPH,” said Ms. Pierce. “Typically, if the patient stops overusing that medication, they’ll find relief from their headaches. However, with our NDPH patients, when they stop overusing that medication, they still are having headaches associated with NDPH.”

The data indicated “a strong difference between our male and female patients,” said Ms. Pierce. Female patients reported significantly more instances of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and dizziness than did male patients. Overall, 78% of participants had a diagnosis of an additional comorbidity, such as head trauma (18%), anxiety (14%), depression (8%), or other (37%).

Observational studies of pediatric NDPH offer “a better way for our providers to diagnose these patients, and also to better understand them and help them figure out a treatment that may work,” said Ms. Pierce. In future research, she and her colleagues intend to examine blood work and potential genetic associations in pediatric patients with NDPH.

The study was not supported by funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pierce E et al. CNS 2019, Abstract 100.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – New daily persistent headache (NDPH) is relatively common among pediatric patients presenting to a headache clinic, according to research presented at the 48th national meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Most children with NDPH fulfill criteria for its migraine subtype, and one-third of pediatric patients with NDPH have comorbid medication overuse headache (MOH).

NDPH is defined as a daily, unremitting headache that lasts for at least 3 months. “Not many studies on NDPH focus on pediatrics,” said Emily Pierce, from Children’s National Medical Center in Washington. NDPH “is considered to be one of the most intractable headaches in children. Children are able to tell that they’ve had this different type of headache because there’s some kind of onset that is very memorable.”

Ms. Pierce and colleagues conducted an observational study to describe the characteristics of NDPH in pediatric patients who presented to a headache program at a tertiary referral center. The researchers included pediatric patients who visited the headache clinic at Children’s National Medical Center between 2016 and 2018 in their analysis. All patients were enrolled in patient registry that had been approved by an independent review board. Ms. Pierce and colleagues queried the registry for NDPH and reviewed these records to examine participants’ clinical presentations.

The investigators identified 3,260 patient encounters during the study period. Of these encounters, 454 patients (13.9%) were identified as having NDPH. Patients with NDPH were predominantly female (78%) and white (72%). The median age of the sample was 14.8 years.

The frontal head region was the most common location of headache pain, which often had a throbbing quality and was associated with photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and decreased activity. The median pain intensity was 6 of 10. Approximately 72% of patients had tried abortive medication, and 56% of patients had failed at least one abortive medication. Excedrin, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen were among the common failed abortive medications.

Furthermore, 36% of patients were diagnosed with MOH. The most commonly overused medication was ibuprofen. MOH “is also considered to be intractable for patients with NDPH,” said Ms. Pierce. “Typically, if the patient stops overusing that medication, they’ll find relief from their headaches. However, with our NDPH patients, when they stop overusing that medication, they still are having headaches associated with NDPH.”

The data indicated “a strong difference between our male and female patients,” said Ms. Pierce. Female patients reported significantly more instances of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and dizziness than did male patients. Overall, 78% of participants had a diagnosis of an additional comorbidity, such as head trauma (18%), anxiety (14%), depression (8%), or other (37%).

Observational studies of pediatric NDPH offer “a better way for our providers to diagnose these patients, and also to better understand them and help them figure out a treatment that may work,” said Ms. Pierce. In future research, she and her colleagues intend to examine blood work and potential genetic associations in pediatric patients with NDPH.

The study was not supported by funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pierce E et al. CNS 2019, Abstract 100.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – New daily persistent headache (NDPH) is relatively common among pediatric patients presenting to a headache clinic, according to research presented at the 48th national meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Most children with NDPH fulfill criteria for its migraine subtype, and one-third of pediatric patients with NDPH have comorbid medication overuse headache (MOH).

NDPH is defined as a daily, unremitting headache that lasts for at least 3 months. “Not many studies on NDPH focus on pediatrics,” said Emily Pierce, from Children’s National Medical Center in Washington. NDPH “is considered to be one of the most intractable headaches in children. Children are able to tell that they’ve had this different type of headache because there’s some kind of onset that is very memorable.”

Ms. Pierce and colleagues conducted an observational study to describe the characteristics of NDPH in pediatric patients who presented to a headache program at a tertiary referral center. The researchers included pediatric patients who visited the headache clinic at Children’s National Medical Center between 2016 and 2018 in their analysis. All patients were enrolled in patient registry that had been approved by an independent review board. Ms. Pierce and colleagues queried the registry for NDPH and reviewed these records to examine participants’ clinical presentations.

The investigators identified 3,260 patient encounters during the study period. Of these encounters, 454 patients (13.9%) were identified as having NDPH. Patients with NDPH were predominantly female (78%) and white (72%). The median age of the sample was 14.8 years.

The frontal head region was the most common location of headache pain, which often had a throbbing quality and was associated with photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and decreased activity. The median pain intensity was 6 of 10. Approximately 72% of patients had tried abortive medication, and 56% of patients had failed at least one abortive medication. Excedrin, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen were among the common failed abortive medications.

Furthermore, 36% of patients were diagnosed with MOH. The most commonly overused medication was ibuprofen. MOH “is also considered to be intractable for patients with NDPH,” said Ms. Pierce. “Typically, if the patient stops overusing that medication, they’ll find relief from their headaches. However, with our NDPH patients, when they stop overusing that medication, they still are having headaches associated with NDPH.”

The data indicated “a strong difference between our male and female patients,” said Ms. Pierce. Female patients reported significantly more instances of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and dizziness than did male patients. Overall, 78% of participants had a diagnosis of an additional comorbidity, such as head trauma (18%), anxiety (14%), depression (8%), or other (37%).

Observational studies of pediatric NDPH offer “a better way for our providers to diagnose these patients, and also to better understand them and help them figure out a treatment that may work,” said Ms. Pierce. In future research, she and her colleagues intend to examine blood work and potential genetic associations in pediatric patients with NDPH.

The study was not supported by funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pierce E et al. CNS 2019, Abstract 100.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – A significant proportion of children who present to headache clinics have joint hypermobility, according to data presented at the 48th national meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Furthermore, patients with joint hypermobility have a high rate of headache disability, while patients without joint hypermobility have less headache disability, according to Dhwani Sahjwani, MD, a resident at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., and colleagues.

While conducting research in the headache clinic at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., Dr. Sahjwani saw several children with joint hypermobility and a diagnosis of a disorder such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. She and her colleagues began analyzing patients to evaluate the potential association between joint hypermobility and headache disability in children. The investigators included pediatric patients examined in the headache clinic at Children’s National Medical Center between October 2018 and January 2019 in their study. All headache clinic patients were enrolled in a patient registry that had been approved by an independent review board.

Dr. Sahjwani and colleagues measured patients’ headache disability with the Headache Impact Test–6 (HIT-6) questionnaire. Scores of 60 or greater on this questionnaire indicate severe headache disability. The researchers assessed joint hypermobility using the Beighton scoring system. In this system, scores greater than 4 indicate joint hypermobility.

Dr. Sahjwani’s group scored 76 patients using the Beighton system and HIT-6 questionnaire. Participants’ median age was 13.7 years. Approximately 26% of patients had Beighton scores that indicated joint hypermobility. About 65% of the patients with joint hypermobility had a diagnosis of migraine without aura. In addition, 80% of patients with joint hypermobility had severe headache disability, according to the HIT-6 disability criteria. The average pain intensity in patients with hypermobile joints was 6.1 out of 10. Among participants without significant joint hypermobility, 90% had mild headache disability.

Patients with joint hypermobility and increased tissue elasticity “tend to have a lower threshold for pain, in general, in all parts of their bodies,” said Dr. Sahjwani. Greater headache severity might be expected in this population, “because they have more pain if they have hypermobile joints or tissue.”

Headache treatments for this population are based solely on the type of headache that each patient has. Patients with joint hypermobility and migraine, for example, are candidates for rescue medication and long-term prophylactic medications. “I don’t think the joint hypermobility is going to change how you manage their headaches,” said Dr. Sahjwani.

The study results suggest that, when children present with severely debilitating headaches, a neurologist should consider examining them for joint hypermobility “to see if they have another diagnosis, such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome ... that has to be managed in addition to their headaches,” Dr. Sahjwani concluded.

The study was not supported by funding. The authors did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sahjwani D et al. CNS 2019, Abstract 101.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – A significant proportion of children who present to headache clinics have joint hypermobility, according to data presented at the 48th national meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Furthermore, patients with joint hypermobility have a high rate of headache disability, while patients without joint hypermobility have less headache disability, according to Dhwani Sahjwani, MD, a resident at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., and colleagues.

While conducting research in the headache clinic at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., Dr. Sahjwani saw several children with joint hypermobility and a diagnosis of a disorder such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. She and her colleagues began analyzing patients to evaluate the potential association between joint hypermobility and headache disability in children. The investigators included pediatric patients examined in the headache clinic at Children’s National Medical Center between October 2018 and January 2019 in their study. All headache clinic patients were enrolled in a patient registry that had been approved by an independent review board.

Dr. Sahjwani and colleagues measured patients’ headache disability with the Headache Impact Test–6 (HIT-6) questionnaire. Scores of 60 or greater on this questionnaire indicate severe headache disability. The researchers assessed joint hypermobility using the Beighton scoring system. In this system, scores greater than 4 indicate joint hypermobility.

Dr. Sahjwani’s group scored 76 patients using the Beighton system and HIT-6 questionnaire. Participants’ median age was 13.7 years. Approximately 26% of patients had Beighton scores that indicated joint hypermobility. About 65% of the patients with joint hypermobility had a diagnosis of migraine without aura. In addition, 80% of patients with joint hypermobility had severe headache disability, according to the HIT-6 disability criteria. The average pain intensity in patients with hypermobile joints was 6.1 out of 10. Among participants without significant joint hypermobility, 90% had mild headache disability.

Patients with joint hypermobility and increased tissue elasticity “tend to have a lower threshold for pain, in general, in all parts of their bodies,” said Dr. Sahjwani. Greater headache severity might be expected in this population, “because they have more pain if they have hypermobile joints or tissue.”

Headache treatments for this population are based solely on the type of headache that each patient has. Patients with joint hypermobility and migraine, for example, are candidates for rescue medication and long-term prophylactic medications. “I don’t think the joint hypermobility is going to change how you manage their headaches,” said Dr. Sahjwani.

The study results suggest that, when children present with severely debilitating headaches, a neurologist should consider examining them for joint hypermobility “to see if they have another diagnosis, such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome ... that has to be managed in addition to their headaches,” Dr. Sahjwani concluded.

The study was not supported by funding. The authors did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sahjwani D et al. CNS 2019, Abstract 101.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – A significant proportion of children who present to headache clinics have joint hypermobility, according to data presented at the 48th national meeting of the Child Neurology Society. Furthermore, patients with joint hypermobility have a high rate of headache disability, while patients without joint hypermobility have less headache disability, according to Dhwani Sahjwani, MD, a resident at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., and colleagues.

While conducting research in the headache clinic at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., Dr. Sahjwani saw several children with joint hypermobility and a diagnosis of a disorder such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. She and her colleagues began analyzing patients to evaluate the potential association between joint hypermobility and headache disability in children. The investigators included pediatric patients examined in the headache clinic at Children’s National Medical Center between October 2018 and January 2019 in their study. All headache clinic patients were enrolled in a patient registry that had been approved by an independent review board.

Dr. Sahjwani and colleagues measured patients’ headache disability with the Headache Impact Test–6 (HIT-6) questionnaire. Scores of 60 or greater on this questionnaire indicate severe headache disability. The researchers assessed joint hypermobility using the Beighton scoring system. In this system, scores greater than 4 indicate joint hypermobility.

Dr. Sahjwani’s group scored 76 patients using the Beighton system and HIT-6 questionnaire. Participants’ median age was 13.7 years. Approximately 26% of patients had Beighton scores that indicated joint hypermobility. About 65% of the patients with joint hypermobility had a diagnosis of migraine without aura. In addition, 80% of patients with joint hypermobility had severe headache disability, according to the HIT-6 disability criteria. The average pain intensity in patients with hypermobile joints was 6.1 out of 10. Among participants without significant joint hypermobility, 90% had mild headache disability.

Patients with joint hypermobility and increased tissue elasticity “tend to have a lower threshold for pain, in general, in all parts of their bodies,” said Dr. Sahjwani. Greater headache severity might be expected in this population, “because they have more pain if they have hypermobile joints or tissue.”

Headache treatments for this population are based solely on the type of headache that each patient has. Patients with joint hypermobility and migraine, for example, are candidates for rescue medication and long-term prophylactic medications. “I don’t think the joint hypermobility is going to change how you manage their headaches,” said Dr. Sahjwani.

The study results suggest that, when children present with severely debilitating headaches, a neurologist should consider examining them for joint hypermobility “to see if they have another diagnosis, such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome ... that has to be managed in addition to their headaches,” Dr. Sahjwani concluded.

The study was not supported by funding. The authors did not report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sahjwani D et al. CNS 2019, Abstract 101.