Pediatricians have long charted the vitals of children and adolescents – height, weight, blood pressure – to ensure that kids are healthy and developing as they should. This is the core of the profession. But today the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians also perform maternal depression screenings, childhood depression screenings, autism screenings, and suicide risk screenings once children become 12 years old in addition to other screenings. Specific screening tools might include the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (MCHAT) for autism screening, the PHQ2 and PHQ9 (part of the longer Patient Health Questionnaire) for depression screening, and the Suicide Behavior Questionnaire Revised (SBQ-R) for suicide screening.

The AAP’s list of recommended screenings – which are developed by various research groups and endorsed by AAP – includes approximately 30 screenings in all, which vary somewhat depending on age. Seven screenings are mental and behavioral health assessments that would, depending on the screening results, require other expertise to address.

“We all want to keep [children] healthy. We actually do want to do these screenings, because they can be very helpful,” said Herschel Lessin, MD, of the Children’s Medical Group in Hopewell Junction, N.Y. Dr. Lessin’s concern is that he may not have anywhere to refer children and their families if he conducts a screening that flags something concerning such as a deeply depressed teenager. Sometimes first appointments with mental health professionals are not available for months.

“Sure – they want us to screen for depression, they want us to screen for anxiety. OK, you get a positive. What do you do? Well, guess what – there are no resources for children and mental health in this country,” Dr. Lessin said.

In Dr. Lessin’s view, economic realities prevent pediatricians from performing detailed psychological screenings anyway – no matter how useful or evidence based they might be, even if mental health support was abundant. He estimates that his practice conducts 20-25 visits a day, around 20 minutes each, of which maybe a dozen are well-child visits, just to keep the doors open. If he thoroughly screened every child or adolescent in the manner recommended by the AAP, Dr. Lessin said, he could do a fraction of that volume and would have to close his doors as a result.

Beside the time burden, insurers reimburse developmental and psychological screenings at low rates, Dr. Lessin said, even with claims that accurately itemize every screening delivered.

“Insurance companies refuse to pay adequately for any of this stuff. They expect me to do it for free, or do it for pennies,” Dr. Lessin said. He said that the natural result of such an arrangement is that some pediatricians stop taking insurance and only work with families that can afford their rates, further entrenching unequal health care by catering to wealthy families who can afford to pay for longer visits. Other pediatricians just don’t do all of the recommended screenings.

“I don’t want it to sound like I’m whining about being paid. They don’t adequately resource what they expect us to do, which is to be society’s social worker,” Dr. Lessin said.
 

Practical advice for interpreting and prioritizing screenings

Other pediatricians called for screening developers to include guidance for pediatricians about how to counsel families when a screening turns up a concerning result.

“What can we do as pediatricians in that moment to help that family?” asked Karalyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire in Cheshire, Conn.

Sometimes the path forward is clear, as with an autism screening; in those cases, Dr. Kinsella said, Connecticut requires referral for a full autism evaluation from birth to age 3. But for other situations, such as an anxiety screening, it is less clear how to proceed.

Dr. Kinsella said that in her experience in-person appointments with a mental health professional, compared with telehealth, work best for her patients. This enables the teenager to find a good fit with a therapist, which can take time when first appointments are so elusive. Any support for pediatricians to bridge the gap until therapy is established is welcome.

“It would be great if it came along with some training – just a brief training – of some ways we can help families before they get into a therapist, or before it gets to the point that they need therapy,” Dr. Kinsella said.

Dr. Kinsella stressed that pediatricians need to use their own judgment when interpreting screening results. Sometimes the MCHAT will miss cases of autism, for example, or the PHQ9 will flag a teenager for depression who is actually just fidgety and having some trouble sleeping.

In her view, the existence of such screens – which might also include screenings for drug abuse, toxic stress, or food insecurity, along with autism, anxiety, and maternal or child depression – is a good development, despite their imperfections and the difficulties of getting help in a timely manner.

“Twenty years ago we really didn’t have any screens,” Dr. Kinsella said.

But it may be that there are now too many recommended screens in pediatrics, even if they all individually have value.

“In the adult world, screenings haven’t mushroomed as in pediatrics” said Dr. Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, who practices combined internal medicine and pediatrics at Neighborcare Health in Seattle. Recommended adult health screenings are largely driven by the work of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which requires a high level of evidence before a screening is recommended. The pediatrics screening world, in Dr. Joos’s view, is populated by a more diffuse set of actors and has therefore inevitably resulted in a profusion of recommended screenings.

Although its main focus is adults, Dr. Joos noted that the USPSTF has evaluated many of the pediatric screenings currently endorsed by AAP. Sometimes there is strong evidence for these screenings, such as universal screening for depression and anxiety in older children. But Dr. Joos noted that per the USPSTF, many of the screenings now recommended by AAP on asymptomatic children for autism, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or anemia don’t have strong evidence on a population level.

“In many cases, we have a good screen, but it just lacks the research,” Dr. Joos said. Nonetheless, every screening is recommended with “equal weight,” Dr. Joos said, calling for AAP to offer a more prioritized approach to screening rather than an “all comers” approach.

“If you don’t set priorities, you don’t have priorities,” Dr. Joos said, which leads to untenable expectations for what can be accomplished during short visits.
 

AAP responds

Susan Kressly, MD, who chairs AAP’s Section on Administration and Practice and is a consultant based in Sanibel, Fla., said that we know that using targeting screenings will miss a significant proportion of patients whom you could better assist and care for; for example, if you just go by your gut feeling about whether kids are using drugs or alcohol and just screen those kids. Every screening endorsed by AAP has some degree of evidence for use at a population level rather than case by case, Dr. Kressly noted.

This doesn’t mean that every single screening must be done at each and every recommended interval, she emphasized.

“The first priority is what’s important to the patient and the family. While we understand that screening is at a population health level, there should be some intelligent use and prioritization of these screening tools,” Dr. Kressly said. As examples, Dr. Kressly noted that there is no need to keep administering autism screenings in families whose children already receive autism services, or to ask a teenager questions about anxiety they had answered 6 weeks earlier.

The screenings should be seen as a tool for enhancing relationships with children and their families, not as a series of endless tasks, Dr. Kressly concluded.

Dr. Lessin’s priority is that pediatricians get more support – time, money, training, adequately resourced mental health care – to carry out their expanded role.

“Pediatricians are pretty nice. We want to do the right thing, but everything blocks us from doing it,” Dr. Lessin said.

Dr. Joos, Dr. Kinsella, and Dr. Lessin are on the MDedge Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Pediatricians have long charted the vitals of children and adolescents – height, weight, blood pressure – to ensure that kids are healthy and developing as they should. This is the core of the profession. But today the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians also perform maternal depression screenings, childhood depression screenings, autism screenings, and suicide risk screenings once children become 12 years old in addition to other screenings. Specific screening tools might include the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (MCHAT) for autism screening, the PHQ2 and PHQ9 (part of the longer Patient Health Questionnaire) for depression screening, and the Suicide Behavior Questionnaire Revised (SBQ-R) for suicide screening.

The AAP’s list of recommended screenings – which are developed by various research groups and endorsed by AAP – includes approximately 30 screenings in all, which vary somewhat depending on age. Seven screenings are mental and behavioral health assessments that would, depending on the screening results, require other expertise to address.

“We all want to keep [children] healthy. We actually do want to do these screenings, because they can be very helpful,” said Herschel Lessin, MD, of the Children’s Medical Group in Hopewell Junction, N.Y. Dr. Lessin’s concern is that he may not have anywhere to refer children and their families if he conducts a screening that flags something concerning such as a deeply depressed teenager. Sometimes first appointments with mental health professionals are not available for months.

“Sure – they want us to screen for depression, they want us to screen for anxiety. OK, you get a positive. What do you do? Well, guess what – there are no resources for children and mental health in this country,” Dr. Lessin said.

In Dr. Lessin’s view, economic realities prevent pediatricians from performing detailed psychological screenings anyway – no matter how useful or evidence based they might be, even if mental health support was abundant. He estimates that his practice conducts 20-25 visits a day, around 20 minutes each, of which maybe a dozen are well-child visits, just to keep the doors open. If he thoroughly screened every child or adolescent in the manner recommended by the AAP, Dr. Lessin said, he could do a fraction of that volume and would have to close his doors as a result.

Beside the time burden, insurers reimburse developmental and psychological screenings at low rates, Dr. Lessin said, even with claims that accurately itemize every screening delivered.

“Insurance companies refuse to pay adequately for any of this stuff. They expect me to do it for free, or do it for pennies,” Dr. Lessin said. He said that the natural result of such an arrangement is that some pediatricians stop taking insurance and only work with families that can afford their rates, further entrenching unequal health care by catering to wealthy families who can afford to pay for longer visits. Other pediatricians just don’t do all of the recommended screenings.

“I don’t want it to sound like I’m whining about being paid. They don’t adequately resource what they expect us to do, which is to be society’s social worker,” Dr. Lessin said.
 

Practical advice for interpreting and prioritizing screenings

Other pediatricians called for screening developers to include guidance for pediatricians about how to counsel families when a screening turns up a concerning result.

“What can we do as pediatricians in that moment to help that family?” asked Karalyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire in Cheshire, Conn.

Sometimes the path forward is clear, as with an autism screening; in those cases, Dr. Kinsella said, Connecticut requires referral for a full autism evaluation from birth to age 3. But for other situations, such as an anxiety screening, it is less clear how to proceed.

Dr. Kinsella said that in her experience in-person appointments with a mental health professional, compared with telehealth, work best for her patients. This enables the teenager to find a good fit with a therapist, which can take time when first appointments are so elusive. Any support for pediatricians to bridge the gap until therapy is established is welcome.

“It would be great if it came along with some training – just a brief training – of some ways we can help families before they get into a therapist, or before it gets to the point that they need therapy,” Dr. Kinsella said.

Dr. Kinsella stressed that pediatricians need to use their own judgment when interpreting screening results. Sometimes the MCHAT will miss cases of autism, for example, or the PHQ9 will flag a teenager for depression who is actually just fidgety and having some trouble sleeping.

In her view, the existence of such screens – which might also include screenings for drug abuse, toxic stress, or food insecurity, along with autism, anxiety, and maternal or child depression – is a good development, despite their imperfections and the difficulties of getting help in a timely manner.

“Twenty years ago we really didn’t have any screens,” Dr. Kinsella said.

But it may be that there are now too many recommended screens in pediatrics, even if they all individually have value.

“In the adult world, screenings haven’t mushroomed as in pediatrics” said Dr. Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, who practices combined internal medicine and pediatrics at Neighborcare Health in Seattle. Recommended adult health screenings are largely driven by the work of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which requires a high level of evidence before a screening is recommended. The pediatrics screening world, in Dr. Joos’s view, is populated by a more diffuse set of actors and has therefore inevitably resulted in a profusion of recommended screenings.

Although its main focus is adults, Dr. Joos noted that the USPSTF has evaluated many of the pediatric screenings currently endorsed by AAP. Sometimes there is strong evidence for these screenings, such as universal screening for depression and anxiety in older children. But Dr. Joos noted that per the USPSTF, many of the screenings now recommended by AAP on asymptomatic children for autism, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or anemia don’t have strong evidence on a population level.

“In many cases, we have a good screen, but it just lacks the research,” Dr. Joos said. Nonetheless, every screening is recommended with “equal weight,” Dr. Joos said, calling for AAP to offer a more prioritized approach to screening rather than an “all comers” approach.

“If you don’t set priorities, you don’t have priorities,” Dr. Joos said, which leads to untenable expectations for what can be accomplished during short visits.
 

AAP responds

Susan Kressly, MD, who chairs AAP’s Section on Administration and Practice and is a consultant based in Sanibel, Fla., said that we know that using targeting screenings will miss a significant proportion of patients whom you could better assist and care for; for example, if you just go by your gut feeling about whether kids are using drugs or alcohol and just screen those kids. Every screening endorsed by AAP has some degree of evidence for use at a population level rather than case by case, Dr. Kressly noted.

This doesn’t mean that every single screening must be done at each and every recommended interval, she emphasized.

“The first priority is what’s important to the patient and the family. While we understand that screening is at a population health level, there should be some intelligent use and prioritization of these screening tools,” Dr. Kressly said. As examples, Dr. Kressly noted that there is no need to keep administering autism screenings in families whose children already receive autism services, or to ask a teenager questions about anxiety they had answered 6 weeks earlier.

The screenings should be seen as a tool for enhancing relationships with children and their families, not as a series of endless tasks, Dr. Kressly concluded.

Dr. Lessin’s priority is that pediatricians get more support – time, money, training, adequately resourced mental health care – to carry out their expanded role.

“Pediatricians are pretty nice. We want to do the right thing, but everything blocks us from doing it,” Dr. Lessin said.

Dr. Joos, Dr. Kinsella, and Dr. Lessin are on the MDedge Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Pediatricians have long charted the vitals of children and adolescents – height, weight, blood pressure – to ensure that kids are healthy and developing as they should. This is the core of the profession. But today the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians also perform maternal depression screenings, childhood depression screenings, autism screenings, and suicide risk screenings once children become 12 years old in addition to other screenings. Specific screening tools might include the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (MCHAT) for autism screening, the PHQ2 and PHQ9 (part of the longer Patient Health Questionnaire) for depression screening, and the Suicide Behavior Questionnaire Revised (SBQ-R) for suicide screening.

The AAP’s list of recommended screenings – which are developed by various research groups and endorsed by AAP – includes approximately 30 screenings in all, which vary somewhat depending on age. Seven screenings are mental and behavioral health assessments that would, depending on the screening results, require other expertise to address.

“We all want to keep [children] healthy. We actually do want to do these screenings, because they can be very helpful,” said Herschel Lessin, MD, of the Children’s Medical Group in Hopewell Junction, N.Y. Dr. Lessin’s concern is that he may not have anywhere to refer children and their families if he conducts a screening that flags something concerning such as a deeply depressed teenager. Sometimes first appointments with mental health professionals are not available for months.

“Sure – they want us to screen for depression, they want us to screen for anxiety. OK, you get a positive. What do you do? Well, guess what – there are no resources for children and mental health in this country,” Dr. Lessin said.

In Dr. Lessin’s view, economic realities prevent pediatricians from performing detailed psychological screenings anyway – no matter how useful or evidence based they might be, even if mental health support was abundant. He estimates that his practice conducts 20-25 visits a day, around 20 minutes each, of which maybe a dozen are well-child visits, just to keep the doors open. If he thoroughly screened every child or adolescent in the manner recommended by the AAP, Dr. Lessin said, he could do a fraction of that volume and would have to close his doors as a result.

Beside the time burden, insurers reimburse developmental and psychological screenings at low rates, Dr. Lessin said, even with claims that accurately itemize every screening delivered.

“Insurance companies refuse to pay adequately for any of this stuff. They expect me to do it for free, or do it for pennies,” Dr. Lessin said. He said that the natural result of such an arrangement is that some pediatricians stop taking insurance and only work with families that can afford their rates, further entrenching unequal health care by catering to wealthy families who can afford to pay for longer visits. Other pediatricians just don’t do all of the recommended screenings.

“I don’t want it to sound like I’m whining about being paid. They don’t adequately resource what they expect us to do, which is to be society’s social worker,” Dr. Lessin said.
 

Practical advice for interpreting and prioritizing screenings

Other pediatricians called for screening developers to include guidance for pediatricians about how to counsel families when a screening turns up a concerning result.

“What can we do as pediatricians in that moment to help that family?” asked Karalyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire in Cheshire, Conn.

Sometimes the path forward is clear, as with an autism screening; in those cases, Dr. Kinsella said, Connecticut requires referral for a full autism evaluation from birth to age 3. But for other situations, such as an anxiety screening, it is less clear how to proceed.

Dr. Kinsella said that in her experience in-person appointments with a mental health professional, compared with telehealth, work best for her patients. This enables the teenager to find a good fit with a therapist, which can take time when first appointments are so elusive. Any support for pediatricians to bridge the gap until therapy is established is welcome.

“It would be great if it came along with some training – just a brief training – of some ways we can help families before they get into a therapist, or before it gets to the point that they need therapy,” Dr. Kinsella said.

Dr. Kinsella stressed that pediatricians need to use their own judgment when interpreting screening results. Sometimes the MCHAT will miss cases of autism, for example, or the PHQ9 will flag a teenager for depression who is actually just fidgety and having some trouble sleeping.

In her view, the existence of such screens – which might also include screenings for drug abuse, toxic stress, or food insecurity, along with autism, anxiety, and maternal or child depression – is a good development, despite their imperfections and the difficulties of getting help in a timely manner.

“Twenty years ago we really didn’t have any screens,” Dr. Kinsella said.

But it may be that there are now too many recommended screens in pediatrics, even if they all individually have value.

“In the adult world, screenings haven’t mushroomed as in pediatrics” said Dr. Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, who practices combined internal medicine and pediatrics at Neighborcare Health in Seattle. Recommended adult health screenings are largely driven by the work of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which requires a high level of evidence before a screening is recommended. The pediatrics screening world, in Dr. Joos’s view, is populated by a more diffuse set of actors and has therefore inevitably resulted in a profusion of recommended screenings.

Although its main focus is adults, Dr. Joos noted that the USPSTF has evaluated many of the pediatric screenings currently endorsed by AAP. Sometimes there is strong evidence for these screenings, such as universal screening for depression and anxiety in older children. But Dr. Joos noted that per the USPSTF, many of the screenings now recommended by AAP on asymptomatic children for autism, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or anemia don’t have strong evidence on a population level.

“In many cases, we have a good screen, but it just lacks the research,” Dr. Joos said. Nonetheless, every screening is recommended with “equal weight,” Dr. Joos said, calling for AAP to offer a more prioritized approach to screening rather than an “all comers” approach.

“If you don’t set priorities, you don’t have priorities,” Dr. Joos said, which leads to untenable expectations for what can be accomplished during short visits.
 

AAP responds

Susan Kressly, MD, who chairs AAP’s Section on Administration and Practice and is a consultant based in Sanibel, Fla., said that we know that using targeting screenings will miss a significant proportion of patients whom you could better assist and care for; for example, if you just go by your gut feeling about whether kids are using drugs or alcohol and just screen those kids. Every screening endorsed by AAP has some degree of evidence for use at a population level rather than case by case, Dr. Kressly noted.

This doesn’t mean that every single screening must be done at each and every recommended interval, she emphasized.

“The first priority is what’s important to the patient and the family. While we understand that screening is at a population health level, there should be some intelligent use and prioritization of these screening tools,” Dr. Kressly said. As examples, Dr. Kressly noted that there is no need to keep administering autism screenings in families whose children already receive autism services, or to ask a teenager questions about anxiety they had answered 6 weeks earlier.

The screenings should be seen as a tool for enhancing relationships with children and their families, not as a series of endless tasks, Dr. Kressly concluded.

Dr. Lessin’s priority is that pediatricians get more support – time, money, training, adequately resourced mental health care – to carry out their expanded role.

“Pediatricians are pretty nice. We want to do the right thing, but everything blocks us from doing it,” Dr. Lessin said.

Dr. Joos, Dr. Kinsella, and Dr. Lessin are on the MDedge Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Increased public health and research efforts to optimize prepregnancy cardiovascular health are needed, particularly among those in under-represented racial and ethnic groups, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

“We have released this statement at this time because there is a maternal health crisis in the U.S. with rising maternal morbidity and mortality rates, which are the highest among high-income countries,” chair of the scientific statement writing group, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, told this news organization.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period and represents 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, the statement reports.

“While there is a lot of emphasis in trying to reduce cardiovascular risk during the period of actual pregnancy, much of that risk has often already developed and the women have been living with it for some time, so interventions during pregnancy may be too late,” Dr. Khan, assistant professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said.

“We wanted to try and emphasize the importance of starting to reduce cardiovascular risk earlier before pregnancy. In terms of improving cardiovascular health, this should have benefits both for the mother and the child,” she added.

The statement, “Optimizing Prepregnancy Cardiovascular Health to Improve Outcomes in Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals and Offspring” was published online in a “Go Red For Women” spotlight issue of the AHA publication Circulation.

The statement notes that low levels of prepregnancy cardiovascular health are associated with several pregnancy complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and gestational diabetes. Currently, nearly one in five births are complicated by such an adverse pregnancy outcome, and there is a strong association between these complications and risk for subsequent cardiovascular disease.
 

Prepregnancy window

Over the past decade, rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes have increased significantly in the United States, with a near doubling in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and there are persistent disparities, with Black individuals significantly more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, the statement notes.

Emerging data suggest that these complications have, at least in part, prepregnancy origins. Thus, the prepregnancy period may be a critical window during which interventions have a great potential for benefit in both women and their offspring, it says.

The authors suggest a life-course approach to measure, modify, and monitor prepregnancy cardiovascular health, with all clinicians who interact with pregnancy-capable individuals emphasizing optimization of cardiovascular health beginning early in childhood.

“Leveraging these opportunities to target cardiovascular health has the potential to improve health across the life course and for subsequent generations,” they add.
 

Critical research gap

Despite the evidence linking an individual’s prepregnancy health to their offspring’s health, there are no large trials to test whether improving overall cardiovascular health before pregnancy will reduce pregnancy complications, pregnancy-related cardiovascular death, or cardiovascular risk for offspring. The statement authors suggest that such a trial should be considered.

“This would be a big undertaking, but it could be feasible and could be really impactful,” Dr. Khan said. “Of course it would be challenging to recruit women who are planning a pregnancy and to follow them to see if they do get pregnant and consider interventions and outcomes, but given the importance of the need, we think this is something that should be invested in.”

She pointed out that the main way to improve the cardiovascular health of this cohort would be through behavioral counseling on physical activity and diet. “We need to develop strategies tailored to this age group – young women and those who may already have young children – and often the last thing they are thinking about is themselves and their own health.”

She explained that while it is presumed that controlling cardiovascular risk factors will be beneficial, the bigger question is how that can be achieved. “Behavioral interventions are difficult to achieve and often have low adherence, so the focus of the trials should be on strategies on how to deliver behavioral counseling to achieve better cardiovascular health in this population.”

Dr. Khan stressed that any approaches to improving prepregnancy cardiovascular health must address the current racial disparities that are present. “We must make sure that our policies are successful not just in improving cardiovascular health but to ensure it is done equitably. We must find ways to ensure all individuals can access care.”

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

Increased public health and research efforts to optimize prepregnancy cardiovascular health are needed, particularly among those in under-represented racial and ethnic groups, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

“We have released this statement at this time because there is a maternal health crisis in the U.S. with rising maternal morbidity and mortality rates, which are the highest among high-income countries,” chair of the scientific statement writing group, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, told this news organization.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period and represents 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, the statement reports.

“While there is a lot of emphasis in trying to reduce cardiovascular risk during the period of actual pregnancy, much of that risk has often already developed and the women have been living with it for some time, so interventions during pregnancy may be too late,” Dr. Khan, assistant professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said.

“We wanted to try and emphasize the importance of starting to reduce cardiovascular risk earlier before pregnancy. In terms of improving cardiovascular health, this should have benefits both for the mother and the child,” she added.

The statement, “Optimizing Prepregnancy Cardiovascular Health to Improve Outcomes in Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals and Offspring” was published online in a “Go Red For Women” spotlight issue of the AHA publication Circulation.

The statement notes that low levels of prepregnancy cardiovascular health are associated with several pregnancy complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and gestational diabetes. Currently, nearly one in five births are complicated by such an adverse pregnancy outcome, and there is a strong association between these complications and risk for subsequent cardiovascular disease.
 

Prepregnancy window

Over the past decade, rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes have increased significantly in the United States, with a near doubling in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and there are persistent disparities, with Black individuals significantly more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, the statement notes.

Emerging data suggest that these complications have, at least in part, prepregnancy origins. Thus, the prepregnancy period may be a critical window during which interventions have a great potential for benefit in both women and their offspring, it says.

The authors suggest a life-course approach to measure, modify, and monitor prepregnancy cardiovascular health, with all clinicians who interact with pregnancy-capable individuals emphasizing optimization of cardiovascular health beginning early in childhood.

“Leveraging these opportunities to target cardiovascular health has the potential to improve health across the life course and for subsequent generations,” they add.
 

Critical research gap

Despite the evidence linking an individual’s prepregnancy health to their offspring’s health, there are no large trials to test whether improving overall cardiovascular health before pregnancy will reduce pregnancy complications, pregnancy-related cardiovascular death, or cardiovascular risk for offspring. The statement authors suggest that such a trial should be considered.

“This would be a big undertaking, but it could be feasible and could be really impactful,” Dr. Khan said. “Of course it would be challenging to recruit women who are planning a pregnancy and to follow them to see if they do get pregnant and consider interventions and outcomes, but given the importance of the need, we think this is something that should be invested in.”

She pointed out that the main way to improve the cardiovascular health of this cohort would be through behavioral counseling on physical activity and diet. “We need to develop strategies tailored to this age group – young women and those who may already have young children – and often the last thing they are thinking about is themselves and their own health.”

She explained that while it is presumed that controlling cardiovascular risk factors will be beneficial, the bigger question is how that can be achieved. “Behavioral interventions are difficult to achieve and often have low adherence, so the focus of the trials should be on strategies on how to deliver behavioral counseling to achieve better cardiovascular health in this population.”

Dr. Khan stressed that any approaches to improving prepregnancy cardiovascular health must address the current racial disparities that are present. “We must make sure that our policies are successful not just in improving cardiovascular health but to ensure it is done equitably. We must find ways to ensure all individuals can access care.”

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

Increased public health and research efforts to optimize prepregnancy cardiovascular health are needed, particularly among those in under-represented racial and ethnic groups, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

“We have released this statement at this time because there is a maternal health crisis in the U.S. with rising maternal morbidity and mortality rates, which are the highest among high-income countries,” chair of the scientific statement writing group, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, told this news organization.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period and represents 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, the statement reports.

“While there is a lot of emphasis in trying to reduce cardiovascular risk during the period of actual pregnancy, much of that risk has often already developed and the women have been living with it for some time, so interventions during pregnancy may be too late,” Dr. Khan, assistant professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said.

“We wanted to try and emphasize the importance of starting to reduce cardiovascular risk earlier before pregnancy. In terms of improving cardiovascular health, this should have benefits both for the mother and the child,” she added.

The statement, “Optimizing Prepregnancy Cardiovascular Health to Improve Outcomes in Pregnant and Postpartum Individuals and Offspring” was published online in a “Go Red For Women” spotlight issue of the AHA publication Circulation.

The statement notes that low levels of prepregnancy cardiovascular health are associated with several pregnancy complications, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and gestational diabetes. Currently, nearly one in five births are complicated by such an adverse pregnancy outcome, and there is a strong association between these complications and risk for subsequent cardiovascular disease.
 

Prepregnancy window

Over the past decade, rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes have increased significantly in the United States, with a near doubling in rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and there are persistent disparities, with Black individuals significantly more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, the statement notes.

Emerging data suggest that these complications have, at least in part, prepregnancy origins. Thus, the prepregnancy period may be a critical window during which interventions have a great potential for benefit in both women and their offspring, it says.

The authors suggest a life-course approach to measure, modify, and monitor prepregnancy cardiovascular health, with all clinicians who interact with pregnancy-capable individuals emphasizing optimization of cardiovascular health beginning early in childhood.

“Leveraging these opportunities to target cardiovascular health has the potential to improve health across the life course and for subsequent generations,” they add.
 

Critical research gap

Despite the evidence linking an individual’s prepregnancy health to their offspring’s health, there are no large trials to test whether improving overall cardiovascular health before pregnancy will reduce pregnancy complications, pregnancy-related cardiovascular death, or cardiovascular risk for offspring. The statement authors suggest that such a trial should be considered.

“This would be a big undertaking, but it could be feasible and could be really impactful,” Dr. Khan said. “Of course it would be challenging to recruit women who are planning a pregnancy and to follow them to see if they do get pregnant and consider interventions and outcomes, but given the importance of the need, we think this is something that should be invested in.”

She pointed out that the main way to improve the cardiovascular health of this cohort would be through behavioral counseling on physical activity and diet. “We need to develop strategies tailored to this age group – young women and those who may already have young children – and often the last thing they are thinking about is themselves and their own health.”

She explained that while it is presumed that controlling cardiovascular risk factors will be beneficial, the bigger question is how that can be achieved. “Behavioral interventions are difficult to achieve and often have low adherence, so the focus of the trials should be on strategies on how to deliver behavioral counseling to achieve better cardiovascular health in this population.”

Dr. Khan stressed that any approaches to improving prepregnancy cardiovascular health must address the current racial disparities that are present. “We must make sure that our policies are successful not just in improving cardiovascular health but to ensure it is done equitably. We must find ways to ensure all individuals can access care.”

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

Exposure to “forever chemicals” widely used in consumer products disrupts important biological processes in children and young adults, a new study says.

One key finding was that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, hurt thyroid hormone function, which affects growth and metabolism, said the study published in Environmental Health Perspectives. That could leave children vulnerable to numerous diseases later in life, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, the study said.

Another important finding was that the disruption appeared to be caused by a mixture of PFAS, rather than a single chemical of that type.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily over time and persist in water, soil, and the body. They’re used in numerous consumer products, such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpeting, cosmetics, and water-repellent clothing.

PFAS have previously been linked to a host of health issues, including decreased birth weights and immune system problems. To the study authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate which biological processes are altered by exposure to multiple PFAS, said a news release from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Researchers studied blood samples from 312 children from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk and 137 children from the Southern California Children’s Health Study. All the children had a mixture of common PFAS in their blood, including PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpS, PFOA, and PFNA.

“While current interventions have focused on phasing out the use of individual PFAS, such as PFOS and PFOA, this research shows why the focus should be on reducing exposure to all PFAS chemicals,” said Leda Chatzi, MD, a professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Chatzi is also one of the study authors.

In October 2021, the Biden administration announced a plan to reduce the amount of PFAS released into the air, drinking and ground water, and food supply chain.

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

Exposure to “forever chemicals” widely used in consumer products disrupts important biological processes in children and young adults, a new study says.

One key finding was that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, hurt thyroid hormone function, which affects growth and metabolism, said the study published in Environmental Health Perspectives. That could leave children vulnerable to numerous diseases later in life, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, the study said.

Another important finding was that the disruption appeared to be caused by a mixture of PFAS, rather than a single chemical of that type.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily over time and persist in water, soil, and the body. They’re used in numerous consumer products, such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpeting, cosmetics, and water-repellent clothing.

PFAS have previously been linked to a host of health issues, including decreased birth weights and immune system problems. To the study authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate which biological processes are altered by exposure to multiple PFAS, said a news release from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Researchers studied blood samples from 312 children from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk and 137 children from the Southern California Children’s Health Study. All the children had a mixture of common PFAS in their blood, including PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpS, PFOA, and PFNA.

“While current interventions have focused on phasing out the use of individual PFAS, such as PFOS and PFOA, this research shows why the focus should be on reducing exposure to all PFAS chemicals,” said Leda Chatzi, MD, a professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Chatzi is also one of the study authors.

In October 2021, the Biden administration announced a plan to reduce the amount of PFAS released into the air, drinking and ground water, and food supply chain.

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

Exposure to “forever chemicals” widely used in consumer products disrupts important biological processes in children and young adults, a new study says.

One key finding was that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, hurt thyroid hormone function, which affects growth and metabolism, said the study published in Environmental Health Perspectives. That could leave children vulnerable to numerous diseases later in life, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, the study said.

Another important finding was that the disruption appeared to be caused by a mixture of PFAS, rather than a single chemical of that type.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily over time and persist in water, soil, and the body. They’re used in numerous consumer products, such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpeting, cosmetics, and water-repellent clothing.

PFAS have previously been linked to a host of health issues, including decreased birth weights and immune system problems. To the study authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate which biological processes are altered by exposure to multiple PFAS, said a news release from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Researchers studied blood samples from 312 children from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk and 137 children from the Southern California Children’s Health Study. All the children had a mixture of common PFAS in their blood, including PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpS, PFOA, and PFNA.

“While current interventions have focused on phasing out the use of individual PFAS, such as PFOS and PFOA, this research shows why the focus should be on reducing exposure to all PFAS chemicals,” said Leda Chatzi, MD, a professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Chatzi is also one of the study authors.

In October 2021, the Biden administration announced a plan to reduce the amount of PFAS released into the air, drinking and ground water, and food supply chain.

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

WASHINGTON – For patients with diabetes, there are trade-offs for selecting a percutaneous intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main artery disease when either can be considered, according to a hypothesis-generating pooled analysis.

The pooled data from four trials indicate that either method of revascularization is “reasonable,” but risk of myocardial infarction and revascularization is higher and risk of stroke is lower in patients with diabetes following PCI relative to CABG, Prakriti Gaba, MD, said in presenting the analysis at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Despite decades of advances in both PCI and CABG, the findings are remarkably similar to those of Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery Trial (EAST), the first major study to compare PCI to CABG, which were published almost 30 years ago. In the new analysis, like in EAST, PCI and CABG were comparable for a primary composite endpoint overall, but patients with diabetes were the exception. In those, outcomes were modestly better after CABG, said Dr. Gaba, a cardiology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“More and more I am hearing from practitioners that diabetes does not matter, but what I get from your data is that diabetes still matters,” said Spencer B. King, MD, a pioneer of PCI affiliated with Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. King, the first author of the 1994 paper and a panelist in the late-breaking trial session where the new data were presented, pointed out that a relatively limited proportion of patients with diabetes are equally suitable for PCI and CABG because of other considerations. However, he said an updated look once again suggesting that PCI and CABG are not equivalent for left main lesions in patients with diabetes “is helpful to see.”
 

CABG traditionally preferred for left main revascularization

The issue was revisited because CABG has been preferred traditionally for left main disease, but there was increasing evidence that PCI is associated with similar survival, according to Dr. Gaba. These new data support that contention, even if it shows that outcomes are not the same in those with diabetes relative to those without.

In this pooled analysis, data were drawn from four trials. Each compared PCI with drug-eluting stents with CABG in patients that were considered suitable for either. From the four trials, the numbers in this analysis included 705 patients from SYNTAX, 600 patients from PRECOMBAT, 1,184 patients from NOBLE, and 1,905 patients from EXCEL.

The focus was on the 1,104 patients with diabetes relative to the 3,289 without. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 5 years. The multiple secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, stroke, and revascularization.

Overall, the 5-year mortality, independent of revascularization procedure, was 14.8% for those with diabetes and 9.3% for those without (P < .001). For this endpoint, the rates were numerically lower but not statistically different for CABG whether patients had diabetes (14.1% vs. 15.3%) or no diabetes (8.9% vs. 9.7%).

However, the rate of spontaneous MI was twice as great with PCI than with CABG for those with diabetes (8.9% vs. 4.4%), which doubled the hazard ratio within significant confidence intervals (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.21-3.35). The rates of revascularization were also about twice as great with PCI than with CABG (24.5% vs. 12.4%), again producing a twofold increase in risk (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87).

For stroke in patients with diabetes, there was no difference in events at 5 years for PCI relative to CABG (2.1% in both groups). However, in those without diabetes, a trend approaching significance favored CABG over PCI (1.2% vs. 2.1%; HR, 0.177; 95% CI, 0.99-1.77). This difference was concentrated in the first year, when stroke rates among those treated with CABG were more than double the rates among those treated with PCI. Over time, this difference dissipated so that the difference was reduced to a trend at the end of follow-up.
 

Data considered hypothesis generating

Although patients with diabetes were prespecified as a subgroup of interest in these studies, Dr. Gaba said that the data can only be considered hypothesis generating and pointed out several limitations, including the fact that these studies preceded some therapies, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, that are known to affect CV outcomes.

However, Dr. King was not alone in suggesting that these data once again show that diabetes matters. Several panelists agreed, including the moderator of the session, Robert A Byrne, MBBcH, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin.

“Of course, there has been a lot of discussion over the last 4 or 5 years about this issue since the long-term EXCEL data were presented,” Dr. Byrne said. He added that the team of investigators who put this together “have done a great service to the community” by providing a detailed combined analysis to explore the interaction between diabetes and outcomes relative to method of revascularization. Although PCI and CABG are not always equivalent choices for reasons other than diabetes, he echoed the sentiment that diabetes likely remains a variable to consider when considering revascularization of left main artery disease.

Dr. Gabi, Dr. Spencer, and Dr. Byrne report no potential conflicts of interest.

WASHINGTON – For patients with diabetes, there are trade-offs for selecting a percutaneous intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main artery disease when either can be considered, according to a hypothesis-generating pooled analysis.

The pooled data from four trials indicate that either method of revascularization is “reasonable,” but risk of myocardial infarction and revascularization is higher and risk of stroke is lower in patients with diabetes following PCI relative to CABG, Prakriti Gaba, MD, said in presenting the analysis at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Despite decades of advances in both PCI and CABG, the findings are remarkably similar to those of Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery Trial (EAST), the first major study to compare PCI to CABG, which were published almost 30 years ago. In the new analysis, like in EAST, PCI and CABG were comparable for a primary composite endpoint overall, but patients with diabetes were the exception. In those, outcomes were modestly better after CABG, said Dr. Gaba, a cardiology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“More and more I am hearing from practitioners that diabetes does not matter, but what I get from your data is that diabetes still matters,” said Spencer B. King, MD, a pioneer of PCI affiliated with Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. King, the first author of the 1994 paper and a panelist in the late-breaking trial session where the new data were presented, pointed out that a relatively limited proportion of patients with diabetes are equally suitable for PCI and CABG because of other considerations. However, he said an updated look once again suggesting that PCI and CABG are not equivalent for left main lesions in patients with diabetes “is helpful to see.”
 

CABG traditionally preferred for left main revascularization

The issue was revisited because CABG has been preferred traditionally for left main disease, but there was increasing evidence that PCI is associated with similar survival, according to Dr. Gaba. These new data support that contention, even if it shows that outcomes are not the same in those with diabetes relative to those without.

In this pooled analysis, data were drawn from four trials. Each compared PCI with drug-eluting stents with CABG in patients that were considered suitable for either. From the four trials, the numbers in this analysis included 705 patients from SYNTAX, 600 patients from PRECOMBAT, 1,184 patients from NOBLE, and 1,905 patients from EXCEL.

The focus was on the 1,104 patients with diabetes relative to the 3,289 without. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 5 years. The multiple secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, stroke, and revascularization.

Overall, the 5-year mortality, independent of revascularization procedure, was 14.8% for those with diabetes and 9.3% for those without (P < .001). For this endpoint, the rates were numerically lower but not statistically different for CABG whether patients had diabetes (14.1% vs. 15.3%) or no diabetes (8.9% vs. 9.7%).

However, the rate of spontaneous MI was twice as great with PCI than with CABG for those with diabetes (8.9% vs. 4.4%), which doubled the hazard ratio within significant confidence intervals (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.21-3.35). The rates of revascularization were also about twice as great with PCI than with CABG (24.5% vs. 12.4%), again producing a twofold increase in risk (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87).

For stroke in patients with diabetes, there was no difference in events at 5 years for PCI relative to CABG (2.1% in both groups). However, in those without diabetes, a trend approaching significance favored CABG over PCI (1.2% vs. 2.1%; HR, 0.177; 95% CI, 0.99-1.77). This difference was concentrated in the first year, when stroke rates among those treated with CABG were more than double the rates among those treated with PCI. Over time, this difference dissipated so that the difference was reduced to a trend at the end of follow-up.
 

Data considered hypothesis generating

Although patients with diabetes were prespecified as a subgroup of interest in these studies, Dr. Gaba said that the data can only be considered hypothesis generating and pointed out several limitations, including the fact that these studies preceded some therapies, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, that are known to affect CV outcomes.

However, Dr. King was not alone in suggesting that these data once again show that diabetes matters. Several panelists agreed, including the moderator of the session, Robert A Byrne, MBBcH, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin.

“Of course, there has been a lot of discussion over the last 4 or 5 years about this issue since the long-term EXCEL data were presented,” Dr. Byrne said. He added that the team of investigators who put this together “have done a great service to the community” by providing a detailed combined analysis to explore the interaction between diabetes and outcomes relative to method of revascularization. Although PCI and CABG are not always equivalent choices for reasons other than diabetes, he echoed the sentiment that diabetes likely remains a variable to consider when considering revascularization of left main artery disease.

Dr. Gabi, Dr. Spencer, and Dr. Byrne report no potential conflicts of interest.

WASHINGTON – For patients with diabetes, there are trade-offs for selecting a percutaneous intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main artery disease when either can be considered, according to a hypothesis-generating pooled analysis.

The pooled data from four trials indicate that either method of revascularization is “reasonable,” but risk of myocardial infarction and revascularization is higher and risk of stroke is lower in patients with diabetes following PCI relative to CABG, Prakriti Gaba, MD, said in presenting the analysis at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Despite decades of advances in both PCI and CABG, the findings are remarkably similar to those of Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery Trial (EAST), the first major study to compare PCI to CABG, which were published almost 30 years ago. In the new analysis, like in EAST, PCI and CABG were comparable for a primary composite endpoint overall, but patients with diabetes were the exception. In those, outcomes were modestly better after CABG, said Dr. Gaba, a cardiology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“More and more I am hearing from practitioners that diabetes does not matter, but what I get from your data is that diabetes still matters,” said Spencer B. King, MD, a pioneer of PCI affiliated with Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. King, the first author of the 1994 paper and a panelist in the late-breaking trial session where the new data were presented, pointed out that a relatively limited proportion of patients with diabetes are equally suitable for PCI and CABG because of other considerations. However, he said an updated look once again suggesting that PCI and CABG are not equivalent for left main lesions in patients with diabetes “is helpful to see.”
 

CABG traditionally preferred for left main revascularization

The issue was revisited because CABG has been preferred traditionally for left main disease, but there was increasing evidence that PCI is associated with similar survival, according to Dr. Gaba. These new data support that contention, even if it shows that outcomes are not the same in those with diabetes relative to those without.

In this pooled analysis, data were drawn from four trials. Each compared PCI with drug-eluting stents with CABG in patients that were considered suitable for either. From the four trials, the numbers in this analysis included 705 patients from SYNTAX, 600 patients from PRECOMBAT, 1,184 patients from NOBLE, and 1,905 patients from EXCEL.

The focus was on the 1,104 patients with diabetes relative to the 3,289 without. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 5 years. The multiple secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, stroke, and revascularization.

Overall, the 5-year mortality, independent of revascularization procedure, was 14.8% for those with diabetes and 9.3% for those without (P < .001). For this endpoint, the rates were numerically lower but not statistically different for CABG whether patients had diabetes (14.1% vs. 15.3%) or no diabetes (8.9% vs. 9.7%).

However, the rate of spontaneous MI was twice as great with PCI than with CABG for those with diabetes (8.9% vs. 4.4%), which doubled the hazard ratio within significant confidence intervals (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.21-3.35). The rates of revascularization were also about twice as great with PCI than with CABG (24.5% vs. 12.4%), again producing a twofold increase in risk (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87).

For stroke in patients with diabetes, there was no difference in events at 5 years for PCI relative to CABG (2.1% in both groups). However, in those without diabetes, a trend approaching significance favored CABG over PCI (1.2% vs. 2.1%; HR, 0.177; 95% CI, 0.99-1.77). This difference was concentrated in the first year, when stroke rates among those treated with CABG were more than double the rates among those treated with PCI. Over time, this difference dissipated so that the difference was reduced to a trend at the end of follow-up.
 

Data considered hypothesis generating

Although patients with diabetes were prespecified as a subgroup of interest in these studies, Dr. Gaba said that the data can only be considered hypothesis generating and pointed out several limitations, including the fact that these studies preceded some therapies, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, that are known to affect CV outcomes.

However, Dr. King was not alone in suggesting that these data once again show that diabetes matters. Several panelists agreed, including the moderator of the session, Robert A Byrne, MBBcH, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin.

“Of course, there has been a lot of discussion over the last 4 or 5 years about this issue since the long-term EXCEL data were presented,” Dr. Byrne said. He added that the team of investigators who put this together “have done a great service to the community” by providing a detailed combined analysis to explore the interaction between diabetes and outcomes relative to method of revascularization. Although PCI and CABG are not always equivalent choices for reasons other than diabetes, he echoed the sentiment that diabetes likely remains a variable to consider when considering revascularization of left main artery disease.

Dr. Gabi, Dr. Spencer, and Dr. Byrne report no potential conflicts of interest.

Do you use nonpharmacologic approaches to treat your patients living with migraines? Which ones do you prefer?
I always like to start with nonpharmacologic approaches (also termed bio-behavioral approaches) with my patients. I talk to patients about sleep hygiene because if they don't sleep well, they're going to have more headaches. Most of my patients have issues with sleep and rarely feel refreshed in the morning. Most of them have middle insomnia; they wake up between 2 am and 4 am and cannot get back to sleep.

I also talk to my patients about eating properly. If patients don't eat on time or miss a meal, they often get headaches.  While timing is probably more critical, what they eat is important also. Poor diet can lead to decreased energy, and patients can become obese. Obesity impacts headache—especially migraine. I am not sure if there are any particularly good or bad foods for migraine patients, but in general, they should eat fewer fatty foods, fewer carbohydrates, more chicken, and fish than red meat, and a lot of fruits, vegetables, salads, nuts, and whole grains. A good trick is to limit the volume of each meal; do not go back for seconds and limit desserts and alcohol. 

Exercise is beneficial to decrease headaches, and the converse is even more true. Patients should start with low-impact, brief exercise like short walks and slowly build up to 20 minutes of cardio as tolerated, 3 to 5 times per week. Like poor diet choices, a sedentary lifestyle can lead to obesity and then not doing well with headaches and so on. 

What are your goals for treating your patients at the start of a migraine attack?

The goals for treating a migraine attack are to reduce the intensity of the pain quickly and, if possible, make the patient pain-free in ≤2 hours. We also try to reduce their most bothersome symptom, which is usually sensitivity to light or nausea, without causing any adverse effects from the treatment. Possibly as important, we want to get the patient back to functioning at work or at home, so they need no further treatment for that attack.

Unfortunately, many of the medicines we have available do cause adverse events, which are sometimes worse than the headache itself.  A patient can't continue to take a medication that causes significant side effects.

It is also critical to stop the headache quickly, as we don't want patients to take the prescribed acute care medicine and then, if they don’t feel like it’s working, proceed to take aspirin and then acetaminophen and then an anti-inflammatory tablet. The more medicine they take, the more likely they'll get medication overuse headache (MOH).  

MOH is not a great name, but it does imply that patients are taking one or many medications per week to stop their headaches, not realizing that this can worsen and prolong their headaches rather than helping them. They can also experience adverse events from taking so much medication. 

Finally, we want the patients to get rid of a headache so that they do not need to go to an emergency room, and we want to use medication that is cost effective and gets the patient functioning. Some medicines and devices are extremely expensive and not well covered by insurance companies but imagine the patient who takes a new medicine or uses a new device and gets better rapidly. If they hadn't done that, they may have lost a day or 2 of pay from missing work, or they might have gone to work and not done a very effective job because they were feeling miserable and couldn’t think or speak well. 

Do you prescribe triptans?

Definitely. The triptans first became available 30 years ago. There are 7 different triptans, and some work better for some patients than others. They come in tablets, injections, and nasal sprays. Sometimes patients need to try 2 or 3 different triptans to see which one is the most effective for them. If a patient has no success with tablets, there's a possibility that an injection or even a nasal spray would be more effective.
There are 2 triptans available as a nasal spray. I happen to like a triptan nasal spray called zolmitriptan, which usually works faster with fewer adverse events than the tablets.

There's also an injection of sumatriptan available, which is the fastest way to get relief from a triptan. Patients usually don't prefer it because it is an injection that they give themselves via an auto injector, and it may hurt and can be a bit complex to administer. There are definitely more adverse events when sumatriptan is given by injection, but because an injection can deliver very fast results that stop the headache reliably, some patients prefer it.

Triptans have been the mainstay treatment to stop an ongoing migraine attack for 30 years. We have always known there is some constriction of blood vessels and triptan-related side effects such as dizziness, drowsiness, and tingling sensations, so not every patient can take them. The newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) do not constrict blood vessels and have fewer adverse events but cost a lot more if not covered by insurance.

Another newer, nontriptan nasal spray is dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate for acute care. It is one of the best medications to use if the patient’s migraine has been going on for 24 hours, as it tends to work well for a long-lasting headache. It also works for a long period, giving the patient a rest before their next attack. A nasal spray works faster than a tablet form, as the medication is absorbed from the nasal mucosa and does not have to make its way through the GI tract, then to the liver for metabolism, and finally, up to the brain before it begins to work. There can be some side effects in the nose such as discomfort or stuffiness, but if it works well, patients usually tolerate it. 

There's also a newer class of medicine called ditans. In a recent study, lasmiditan, which comes in a 50-mg and a 100-mg tablet for acute care of migraine, showed no vasoconstrictive effects, suggesting that ditans could be a safe option for patients living with chronic cardio- and cerebrovascular disease. Lasmiditan could be an alternative to triptans when they are contraindicated in patients with blood vessel disease, obesity, high blood pressure or cholesterol levels, or in nonresponsive patients. Lasmiditan does cause some dizziness and drowsiness, so patients cannot drive for 8 hours after taking it. However, it does have good efficacy.

When do you prescribe gepants?

Gepants are small-molecule CGRP receptor blockers. They are tablets that sit on the receptor, preventing the CGRP from docking on the receptor and increasing the headache during a migraine attack. There are 2 gepants that can be used to stop a headache that is just starting or in progress: ubrogepant and rimegepant. 

Ubrogepant is a regular tablet that is available in 50-mg or 100-mg strengths. If the first dose does not make a patient pain free, a second dose is recommended about 2 hours later. Rimegepant is a meltaway tablet and only comes in a 75-mg strength. It should be taken early in the attack, and usually the patient does not need further treatment that day. If they do, they need to switch to another treatment, as rimegepant should not be repeated that day. Rimegepant may be used for both acute care and prevention. It is the only tablet that can be used for both. 

Both drugs have been shown to provide pain freedom for about 20% of patients at 2 hours, which is statistically better than the patients that received the placebo. These drugs generally don’t cause many adverse events but can cause a little nausea or drowsiness in some patients. Ubrogepant has a few contraindications; patients on certain medications such as antibiotics or antifungals cannot take it. If a patient is not doing well on a triptan or should not be given a drug that constricts blood vessels, I often switch them to one of these gepants (if covered by insurance). Both drugs have a plan to let the patient try them at a low cost. 

How are the gepants used acutely?

Gepants are used just like a triptan. As soon as the patient has a migraine headache starting, they take either ubrogepant or rimegepant as quickly as possible. Some patients say they feel the gepant begin to work within an hour or less, and some patients say it doesn't work at all, so I have them try the other gepant. 

Gepants are probably a better option than triptans if the patient is >40 years because triptans can constrict blood vessels. Older patients, and certainly those who have any kind of cardiac or cerebral blood vessel issues or even peripheral blood vessel disease, should not be given triptans.

When do you consider using preventive treatment in migraine?

If a patient has ≥4 moderate-to-severe headache days a month, or fewer with severe disability, or does not respond to acute care medications or those drugs are contraindicated, I consider giving them preventive therapy for migraine. The goal is to decrease the number of migraine days per month and to decrease the intensity, duration, and disability of the attacks.

Which gepants can you use for prevention of migraine?

I discussed rimegepant as an acute care medication, but the same 75-mg meltaway tablet given every other day works preventively to decrease the number of headaches. I like it, as it has few adverse events—<3% of patients experience nausea and abdominal pain—and it can also be used to stop a headache on days the patient did not take a tablet.

Atogepant is a newer, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved gepant taken once daily by mouth for prevention of migraine, and it works to decrease headache days per month. It has more side effects than the other gepants, including constipation, drowsiness, and nausea. If a patient does not have many adverse events while taking it, it is a good migraine preventive. 

How do you feel about monoclonal antibodies that bind to CGRP or its receptor for migraine preventive treatment?

Before the gepants became available, 4 different pharmaceutical companies were making monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that bind to either CGRP or its receptor. This class of medication can be quite effective for most patients needing migraine prevention, as these medications last for a long time if the patient keeps taking it. 

Antibodies, when injected, continue to work for 1 to 3 months, making them perfect for migraine prevention, but they must be given either by the patient using an autoinjector with a tiny needle or by intravenous (IV) infusion in a hospital or office. They tend to be quite effective and have few adverse events.  

The first one to come out was erenumab, then frenanezumab, and galcanezumab. The newest one is eptinezumab, given by IV infusion over 30 minutes. Erenumab is the only mAb that sits on the receptor to prevent the CGRP from docking on the receptor, and it's the only one that seems to cause adverse events such as constipation and increased blood pressure in some patients. Eptinezumab is the only drug in this category given by IV infusion; patients must come to the office to receive the injection every 3 months. Even though eptinezumab is a powerful drug, I find that patients generally don't like coming in for IV treatment. I reserve it for when a patient has failed several other preventive treatments. The other 3 drugs (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab) are subcutaneous injections that the patient can self-administer at home. Fremanezumab can be taken once a month or once every 3 months, depending on the dose prescribed. 

What migraine devices do you like to prescribe?

The device that I tend to have my patients use is called Nerivio®; it has been cleared by the FDA for acute treatment of migraine in patients ≥12 years. An article was just published in the journal Headache on its use in prevention of migraine. The company expects the FDA to clear it very soon for prevention when used for 45 minutes every other day.

Nerivio® is an electrical stimulator that is placed on the upper arm like a blood pressure cuff. It is battery-powered and links to an app on a smartphone. I have my patients turn it up slowly to a higher gain, and when they feel a slight discomfort, they lower down until they do not feel it. That's where I recommend that they keep it for 45 minutes of treatment, starting at the beginning of a migraine attack. 

Nerivio® also has a behavioral medicine program incorporated into the smartphone app that lasts for 25 minutes. While the patient is receiving the 45 minutes of electrical stimulation, they are also being guided through relaxation techniques to help ease the headache. The company has done a controlled study comparing the efficacy of Nerivio® with and without the behavioral treatment and found that the 2 together are more effective than Nerivio® alone. 

The early double-blind studies of this device, as sent to the FDA for clearance, have excellent efficacy data with very few adverse events. Thus, it is used by many patients. The company has arranged a lower cost for the first month of treatment so a patient can see whether the device is effective.

There's also a device called Relivion®, which is worn like a tiara on the head to stimulate 4 nerves above the eyebrows that are part of the trigeminal system and 2 in the back of the head that affect the occipital nerves.

One of the earliest devices to launch is the gammaCore vagal nerve stimulator. It is handheld and controlled by the patient. It is placed on the front and side of the neck in the region of the vagal nerve. For acute care of migraine, the patient stimulates for 2 minutes and then waits several minutes before repeating 2 minutes of treatment. If you want to prescribe it for the prevention of migraine, a patient could do this sequence twice per day. It has been approved for acute care and prevention of migraine and, along with other medication for cluster headaches, it is easy to use and approved for almost any kind of headache. Unfortunately, it is extremely expensive for patients and is not covered well by insurance unless the patient is a veteran or goes to a Veterans Health Administration hospital for care. 

There are a few other devices that also work for migraine. Most electrical stimulation devices are costly, but we do hope that insurance companies will begin to cover them soon. Most devices cause few adverse events, have few contraindications, and will be used more as they become more affordable.

Can you summarize migraine treatment for us in one paragraph?

No, but I will try. We have many acute care treatments for migraine that are effective. Some, such as the triptans, do constrict blood vessels, and certain patients should not be taking medications that affect blood vessels. Some medications cause certain side effects or take too long to work, and we have other options for those patients. If a patient has ≥4 headache days per month or fewer associated with a lot of disability, we need to consider prevention. We have older preventives such as beta blockers and epilepsy medications, which are less expensive and can work but usually have many side effects. Now we have 4 mAbs that bind to CGRP or its receptor, which work well for a month or more with few adverse events. We also have 2 oral gepants for prevention. When you add in several devices, I have so many options for my patients today that I am a lucky neurologist, and my patients are even luckier!

Do you use nonpharmacologic approaches to treat your patients living with migraines? Which ones do you prefer?
I always like to start with nonpharmacologic approaches (also termed bio-behavioral approaches) with my patients. I talk to patients about sleep hygiene because if they don't sleep well, they're going to have more headaches. Most of my patients have issues with sleep and rarely feel refreshed in the morning. Most of them have middle insomnia; they wake up between 2 am and 4 am and cannot get back to sleep.

I also talk to my patients about eating properly. If patients don't eat on time or miss a meal, they often get headaches.  While timing is probably more critical, what they eat is important also. Poor diet can lead to decreased energy, and patients can become obese. Obesity impacts headache—especially migraine. I am not sure if there are any particularly good or bad foods for migraine patients, but in general, they should eat fewer fatty foods, fewer carbohydrates, more chicken, and fish than red meat, and a lot of fruits, vegetables, salads, nuts, and whole grains. A good trick is to limit the volume of each meal; do not go back for seconds and limit desserts and alcohol. 

Exercise is beneficial to decrease headaches, and the converse is even more true. Patients should start with low-impact, brief exercise like short walks and slowly build up to 20 minutes of cardio as tolerated, 3 to 5 times per week. Like poor diet choices, a sedentary lifestyle can lead to obesity and then not doing well with headaches and so on. 

What are your goals for treating your patients at the start of a migraine attack?

The goals for treating a migraine attack are to reduce the intensity of the pain quickly and, if possible, make the patient pain-free in ≤2 hours. We also try to reduce their most bothersome symptom, which is usually sensitivity to light or nausea, without causing any adverse effects from the treatment. Possibly as important, we want to get the patient back to functioning at work or at home, so they need no further treatment for that attack.

Unfortunately, many of the medicines we have available do cause adverse events, which are sometimes worse than the headache itself.  A patient can't continue to take a medication that causes significant side effects.

It is also critical to stop the headache quickly, as we don't want patients to take the prescribed acute care medicine and then, if they don’t feel like it’s working, proceed to take aspirin and then acetaminophen and then an anti-inflammatory tablet. The more medicine they take, the more likely they'll get medication overuse headache (MOH).  

MOH is not a great name, but it does imply that patients are taking one or many medications per week to stop their headaches, not realizing that this can worsen and prolong their headaches rather than helping them. They can also experience adverse events from taking so much medication. 

Finally, we want the patients to get rid of a headache so that they do not need to go to an emergency room, and we want to use medication that is cost effective and gets the patient functioning. Some medicines and devices are extremely expensive and not well covered by insurance companies but imagine the patient who takes a new medicine or uses a new device and gets better rapidly. If they hadn't done that, they may have lost a day or 2 of pay from missing work, or they might have gone to work and not done a very effective job because they were feeling miserable and couldn’t think or speak well. 

Do you prescribe triptans?

Definitely. The triptans first became available 30 years ago. There are 7 different triptans, and some work better for some patients than others. They come in tablets, injections, and nasal sprays. Sometimes patients need to try 2 or 3 different triptans to see which one is the most effective for them. If a patient has no success with tablets, there's a possibility that an injection or even a nasal spray would be more effective.
There are 2 triptans available as a nasal spray. I happen to like a triptan nasal spray called zolmitriptan, which usually works faster with fewer adverse events than the tablets.

There's also an injection of sumatriptan available, which is the fastest way to get relief from a triptan. Patients usually don't prefer it because it is an injection that they give themselves via an auto injector, and it may hurt and can be a bit complex to administer. There are definitely more adverse events when sumatriptan is given by injection, but because an injection can deliver very fast results that stop the headache reliably, some patients prefer it.

Triptans have been the mainstay treatment to stop an ongoing migraine attack for 30 years. We have always known there is some constriction of blood vessels and triptan-related side effects such as dizziness, drowsiness, and tingling sensations, so not every patient can take them. The newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) do not constrict blood vessels and have fewer adverse events but cost a lot more if not covered by insurance.

Another newer, nontriptan nasal spray is dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate for acute care. It is one of the best medications to use if the patient’s migraine has been going on for 24 hours, as it tends to work well for a long-lasting headache. It also works for a long period, giving the patient a rest before their next attack. A nasal spray works faster than a tablet form, as the medication is absorbed from the nasal mucosa and does not have to make its way through the GI tract, then to the liver for metabolism, and finally, up to the brain before it begins to work. There can be some side effects in the nose such as discomfort or stuffiness, but if it works well, patients usually tolerate it. 

There's also a newer class of medicine called ditans. In a recent study, lasmiditan, which comes in a 50-mg and a 100-mg tablet for acute care of migraine, showed no vasoconstrictive effects, suggesting that ditans could be a safe option for patients living with chronic cardio- and cerebrovascular disease. Lasmiditan could be an alternative to triptans when they are contraindicated in patients with blood vessel disease, obesity, high blood pressure or cholesterol levels, or in nonresponsive patients. Lasmiditan does cause some dizziness and drowsiness, so patients cannot drive for 8 hours after taking it. However, it does have good efficacy.

When do you prescribe gepants?

Gepants are small-molecule CGRP receptor blockers. They are tablets that sit on the receptor, preventing the CGRP from docking on the receptor and increasing the headache during a migraine attack. There are 2 gepants that can be used to stop a headache that is just starting or in progress: ubrogepant and rimegepant. 

Ubrogepant is a regular tablet that is available in 50-mg or 100-mg strengths. If the first dose does not make a patient pain free, a second dose is recommended about 2 hours later. Rimegepant is a meltaway tablet and only comes in a 75-mg strength. It should be taken early in the attack, and usually the patient does not need further treatment that day. If they do, they need to switch to another treatment, as rimegepant should not be repeated that day. Rimegepant may be used for both acute care and prevention. It is the only tablet that can be used for both. 

Both drugs have been shown to provide pain freedom for about 20% of patients at 2 hours, which is statistically better than the patients that received the placebo. These drugs generally don’t cause many adverse events but can cause a little nausea or drowsiness in some patients. Ubrogepant has a few contraindications; patients on certain medications such as antibiotics or antifungals cannot take it. If a patient is not doing well on a triptan or should not be given a drug that constricts blood vessels, I often switch them to one of these gepants (if covered by insurance). Both drugs have a plan to let the patient try them at a low cost. 

How are the gepants used acutely?

Gepants are used just like a triptan. As soon as the patient has a migraine headache starting, they take either ubrogepant or rimegepant as quickly as possible. Some patients say they feel the gepant begin to work within an hour or less, and some patients say it doesn't work at all, so I have them try the other gepant. 

Gepants are probably a better option than triptans if the patient is >40 years because triptans can constrict blood vessels. Older patients, and certainly those who have any kind of cardiac or cerebral blood vessel issues or even peripheral blood vessel disease, should not be given triptans.

When do you consider using preventive treatment in migraine?

If a patient has ≥4 moderate-to-severe headache days a month, or fewer with severe disability, or does not respond to acute care medications or those drugs are contraindicated, I consider giving them preventive therapy for migraine. The goal is to decrease the number of migraine days per month and to decrease the intensity, duration, and disability of the attacks.

Which gepants can you use for prevention of migraine?

I discussed rimegepant as an acute care medication, but the same 75-mg meltaway tablet given every other day works preventively to decrease the number of headaches. I like it, as it has few adverse events—<3% of patients experience nausea and abdominal pain—and it can also be used to stop a headache on days the patient did not take a tablet.

Atogepant is a newer, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved gepant taken once daily by mouth for prevention of migraine, and it works to decrease headache days per month. It has more side effects than the other gepants, including constipation, drowsiness, and nausea. If a patient does not have many adverse events while taking it, it is a good migraine preventive. 

How do you feel about monoclonal antibodies that bind to CGRP or its receptor for migraine preventive treatment?

Before the gepants became available, 4 different pharmaceutical companies were making monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that bind to either CGRP or its receptor. This class of medication can be quite effective for most patients needing migraine prevention, as these medications last for a long time if the patient keeps taking it. 

Antibodies, when injected, continue to work for 1 to 3 months, making them perfect for migraine prevention, but they must be given either by the patient using an autoinjector with a tiny needle or by intravenous (IV) infusion in a hospital or office. They tend to be quite effective and have few adverse events.  

The first one to come out was erenumab, then frenanezumab, and galcanezumab. The newest one is eptinezumab, given by IV infusion over 30 minutes. Erenumab is the only mAb that sits on the receptor to prevent the CGRP from docking on the receptor, and it's the only one that seems to cause adverse events such as constipation and increased blood pressure in some patients. Eptinezumab is the only drug in this category given by IV infusion; patients must come to the office to receive the injection every 3 months. Even though eptinezumab is a powerful drug, I find that patients generally don't like coming in for IV treatment. I reserve it for when a patient has failed several other preventive treatments. The other 3 drugs (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab) are subcutaneous injections that the patient can self-administer at home. Fremanezumab can be taken once a month or once every 3 months, depending on the dose prescribed. 

What migraine devices do you like to prescribe?

The device that I tend to have my patients use is called Nerivio®; it has been cleared by the FDA for acute treatment of migraine in patients ≥12 years. An article was just published in the journal Headache on its use in prevention of migraine. The company expects the FDA to clear it very soon for prevention when used for 45 minutes every other day.

Nerivio® is an electrical stimulator that is placed on the upper arm like a blood pressure cuff. It is battery-powered and links to an app on a smartphone. I have my patients turn it up slowly to a higher gain, and when they feel a slight discomfort, they lower down until they do not feel it. That's where I recommend that they keep it for 45 minutes of treatment, starting at the beginning of a migraine attack. 

Nerivio® also has a behavioral medicine program incorporated into the smartphone app that lasts for 25 minutes. While the patient is receiving the 45 minutes of electrical stimulation, they are also being guided through relaxation techniques to help ease the headache. The company has done a controlled study comparing the efficacy of Nerivio® with and without the behavioral treatment and found that the 2 together are more effective than Nerivio® alone. 

The early double-blind studies of this device, as sent to the FDA for clearance, have excellent efficacy data with very few adverse events. Thus, it is used by many patients. The company has arranged a lower cost for the first month of treatment so a patient can see whether the device is effective.

There's also a device called Relivion®, which is worn like a tiara on the head to stimulate 4 nerves above the eyebrows that are part of the trigeminal system and 2 in the back of the head that affect the occipital nerves.

One of the earliest devices to launch is the gammaCore vagal nerve stimulator. It is handheld and controlled by the patient. It is placed on the front and side of the neck in the region of the vagal nerve. For acute care of migraine, the patient stimulates for 2 minutes and then waits several minutes before repeating 2 minutes of treatment. If you want to prescribe it for the prevention of migraine, a patient could do this sequence twice per day. It has been approved for acute care and prevention of migraine and, along with other medication for cluster headaches, it is easy to use and approved for almost any kind of headache. Unfortunately, it is extremely expensive for patients and is not covered well by insurance unless the patient is a veteran or goes to a Veterans Health Administration hospital for care. 

There are a few other devices that also work for migraine. Most electrical stimulation devices are costly, but we do hope that insurance companies will begin to cover them soon. Most devices cause few adverse events, have few contraindications, and will be used more as they become more affordable.

Can you summarize migraine treatment for us in one paragraph?

No, but I will try. We have many acute care treatments for migraine that are effective. Some, such as the triptans, do constrict blood vessels, and certain patients should not be taking medications that affect blood vessels. Some medications cause certain side effects or take too long to work, and we have other options for those patients. If a patient has ≥4 headache days per month or fewer associated with a lot of disability, we need to consider prevention. We have older preventives such as beta blockers and epilepsy medications, which are less expensive and can work but usually have many side effects. Now we have 4 mAbs that bind to CGRP or its receptor, which work well for a month or more with few adverse events. We also have 2 oral gepants for prevention. When you add in several devices, I have so many options for my patients today that I am a lucky neurologist, and my patients are even luckier!

Do you use nonpharmacologic approaches to treat your patients living with migraines? Which ones do you prefer?
I always like to start with nonpharmacologic approaches (also termed bio-behavioral approaches) with my patients. I talk to patients about sleep hygiene because if they don't sleep well, they're going to have more headaches. Most of my patients have issues with sleep and rarely feel refreshed in the morning. Most of them have middle insomnia; they wake up between 2 am and 4 am and cannot get back to sleep.

I also talk to my patients about eating properly. If patients don't eat on time or miss a meal, they often get headaches.  While timing is probably more critical, what they eat is important also. Poor diet can lead to decreased energy, and patients can become obese. Obesity impacts headache—especially migraine. I am not sure if there are any particularly good or bad foods for migraine patients, but in general, they should eat fewer fatty foods, fewer carbohydrates, more chicken, and fish than red meat, and a lot of fruits, vegetables, salads, nuts, and whole grains. A good trick is to limit the volume of each meal; do not go back for seconds and limit desserts and alcohol. 

Exercise is beneficial to decrease headaches, and the converse is even more true. Patients should start with low-impact, brief exercise like short walks and slowly build up to 20 minutes of cardio as tolerated, 3 to 5 times per week. Like poor diet choices, a sedentary lifestyle can lead to obesity and then not doing well with headaches and so on. 

What are your goals for treating your patients at the start of a migraine attack?

The goals for treating a migraine attack are to reduce the intensity of the pain quickly and, if possible, make the patient pain-free in ≤2 hours. We also try to reduce their most bothersome symptom, which is usually sensitivity to light or nausea, without causing any adverse effects from the treatment. Possibly as important, we want to get the patient back to functioning at work or at home, so they need no further treatment for that attack.

Unfortunately, many of the medicines we have available do cause adverse events, which are sometimes worse than the headache itself.  A patient can't continue to take a medication that causes significant side effects.

It is also critical to stop the headache quickly, as we don't want patients to take the prescribed acute care medicine and then, if they don’t feel like it’s working, proceed to take aspirin and then acetaminophen and then an anti-inflammatory tablet. The more medicine they take, the more likely they'll get medication overuse headache (MOH).  

MOH is not a great name, but it does imply that patients are taking one or many medications per week to stop their headaches, not realizing that this can worsen and prolong their headaches rather than helping them. They can also experience adverse events from taking so much medication. 

Finally, we want the patients to get rid of a headache so that they do not need to go to an emergency room, and we want to use medication that is cost effective and gets the patient functioning. Some medicines and devices are extremely expensive and not well covered by insurance companies but imagine the patient who takes a new medicine or uses a new device and gets better rapidly. If they hadn't done that, they may have lost a day or 2 of pay from missing work, or they might have gone to work and not done a very effective job because they were feeling miserable and couldn’t think or speak well. 

Do you prescribe triptans?

Definitely. The triptans first became available 30 years ago. There are 7 different triptans, and some work better for some patients than others. They come in tablets, injections, and nasal sprays. Sometimes patients need to try 2 or 3 different triptans to see which one is the most effective for them. If a patient has no success with tablets, there's a possibility that an injection or even a nasal spray would be more effective.
There are 2 triptans available as a nasal spray. I happen to like a triptan nasal spray called zolmitriptan, which usually works faster with fewer adverse events than the tablets.

There's also an injection of sumatriptan available, which is the fastest way to get relief from a triptan. Patients usually don't prefer it because it is an injection that they give themselves via an auto injector, and it may hurt and can be a bit complex to administer. There are definitely more adverse events when sumatriptan is given by injection, but because an injection can deliver very fast results that stop the headache reliably, some patients prefer it.

Triptans have been the mainstay treatment to stop an ongoing migraine attack for 30 years. We have always known there is some constriction of blood vessels and triptan-related side effects such as dizziness, drowsiness, and tingling sensations, so not every patient can take them. The newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) do not constrict blood vessels and have fewer adverse events but cost a lot more if not covered by insurance.

Another newer, nontriptan nasal spray is dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate for acute care. It is one of the best medications to use if the patient’s migraine has been going on for 24 hours, as it tends to work well for a long-lasting headache. It also works for a long period, giving the patient a rest before their next attack. A nasal spray works faster than a tablet form, as the medication is absorbed from the nasal mucosa and does not have to make its way through the GI tract, then to the liver for metabolism, and finally, up to the brain before it begins to work. There can be some side effects in the nose such as discomfort or stuffiness, but if it works well, patients usually tolerate it. 

There's also a newer class of medicine called ditans. In a recent study, lasmiditan, which comes in a 50-mg and a 100-mg tablet for acute care of migraine, showed no vasoconstrictive effects, suggesting that ditans could be a safe option for patients living with chronic cardio- and cerebrovascular disease. Lasmiditan could be an alternative to triptans when they are contraindicated in patients with blood vessel disease, obesity, high blood pressure or cholesterol levels, or in nonresponsive patients. Lasmiditan does cause some dizziness and drowsiness, so patients cannot drive for 8 hours after taking it. However, it does have good efficacy.

When do you prescribe gepants?

Gepants are small-molecule CGRP receptor blockers. They are tablets that sit on the receptor, preventing the CGRP from docking on the receptor and increasing the headache during a migraine attack. There are 2 gepants that can be used to stop a headache that is just starting or in progress: ubrogepant and rimegepant. 

Ubrogepant is a regular tablet that is available in 50-mg or 100-mg strengths. If the first dose does not make a patient pain free, a second dose is recommended about 2 hours later. Rimegepant is a meltaway tablet and only comes in a 75-mg strength. It should be taken early in the attack, and usually the patient does not need further treatment that day. If they do, they need to switch to another treatment, as rimegepant should not be repeated that day. Rimegepant may be used for both acute care and prevention. It is the only tablet that can be used for both. 

Both drugs have been shown to provide pain freedom for about 20% of patients at 2 hours, which is statistically better than the patients that received the placebo. These drugs generally don’t cause many adverse events but can cause a little nausea or drowsiness in some patients. Ubrogepant has a few contraindications; patients on certain medications such as antibiotics or antifungals cannot take it. If a patient is not doing well on a triptan or should not be given a drug that constricts blood vessels, I often switch them to one of these gepants (if covered by insurance). Both drugs have a plan to let the patient try them at a low cost. 

How are the gepants used acutely?

Gepants are used just like a triptan. As soon as the patient has a migraine headache starting, they take either ubrogepant or rimegepant as quickly as possible. Some patients say they feel the gepant begin to work within an hour or less, and some patients say it doesn't work at all, so I have them try the other gepant. 

Gepants are probably a better option than triptans if the patient is >40 years because triptans can constrict blood vessels. Older patients, and certainly those who have any kind of cardiac or cerebral blood vessel issues or even peripheral blood vessel disease, should not be given triptans.

When do you consider using preventive treatment in migraine?

If a patient has ≥4 moderate-to-severe headache days a month, or fewer with severe disability, or does not respond to acute care medications or those drugs are contraindicated, I consider giving them preventive therapy for migraine. The goal is to decrease the number of migraine days per month and to decrease the intensity, duration, and disability of the attacks.

Which gepants can you use for prevention of migraine?

I discussed rimegepant as an acute care medication, but the same 75-mg meltaway tablet given every other day works preventively to decrease the number of headaches. I like it, as it has few adverse events—<3% of patients experience nausea and abdominal pain—and it can also be used to stop a headache on days the patient did not take a tablet.

Atogepant is a newer, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved gepant taken once daily by mouth for prevention of migraine, and it works to decrease headache days per month. It has more side effects than the other gepants, including constipation, drowsiness, and nausea. If a patient does not have many adverse events while taking it, it is a good migraine preventive. 

How do you feel about monoclonal antibodies that bind to CGRP or its receptor for migraine preventive treatment?

Before the gepants became available, 4 different pharmaceutical companies were making monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that bind to either CGRP or its receptor. This class of medication can be quite effective for most patients needing migraine prevention, as these medications last for a long time if the patient keeps taking it. 

Antibodies, when injected, continue to work for 1 to 3 months, making them perfect for migraine prevention, but they must be given either by the patient using an autoinjector with a tiny needle or by intravenous (IV) infusion in a hospital or office. They tend to be quite effective and have few adverse events.  

The first one to come out was erenumab, then frenanezumab, and galcanezumab. The newest one is eptinezumab, given by IV infusion over 30 minutes. Erenumab is the only mAb that sits on the receptor to prevent the CGRP from docking on the receptor, and it's the only one that seems to cause adverse events such as constipation and increased blood pressure in some patients. Eptinezumab is the only drug in this category given by IV infusion; patients must come to the office to receive the injection every 3 months. Even though eptinezumab is a powerful drug, I find that patients generally don't like coming in for IV treatment. I reserve it for when a patient has failed several other preventive treatments. The other 3 drugs (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab) are subcutaneous injections that the patient can self-administer at home. Fremanezumab can be taken once a month or once every 3 months, depending on the dose prescribed. 

What migraine devices do you like to prescribe?

The device that I tend to have my patients use is called Nerivio®; it has been cleared by the FDA for acute treatment of migraine in patients ≥12 years. An article was just published in the journal Headache on its use in prevention of migraine. The company expects the FDA to clear it very soon for prevention when used for 45 minutes every other day.

Nerivio® is an electrical stimulator that is placed on the upper arm like a blood pressure cuff. It is battery-powered and links to an app on a smartphone. I have my patients turn it up slowly to a higher gain, and when they feel a slight discomfort, they lower down until they do not feel it. That's where I recommend that they keep it for 45 minutes of treatment, starting at the beginning of a migraine attack. 

Nerivio® also has a behavioral medicine program incorporated into the smartphone app that lasts for 25 minutes. While the patient is receiving the 45 minutes of electrical stimulation, they are also being guided through relaxation techniques to help ease the headache. The company has done a controlled study comparing the efficacy of Nerivio® with and without the behavioral treatment and found that the 2 together are more effective than Nerivio® alone. 

The early double-blind studies of this device, as sent to the FDA for clearance, have excellent efficacy data with very few adverse events. Thus, it is used by many patients. The company has arranged a lower cost for the first month of treatment so a patient can see whether the device is effective.

There's also a device called Relivion®, which is worn like a tiara on the head to stimulate 4 nerves above the eyebrows that are part of the trigeminal system and 2 in the back of the head that affect the occipital nerves.

One of the earliest devices to launch is the gammaCore vagal nerve stimulator. It is handheld and controlled by the patient. It is placed on the front and side of the neck in the region of the vagal nerve. For acute care of migraine, the patient stimulates for 2 minutes and then waits several minutes before repeating 2 minutes of treatment. If you want to prescribe it for the prevention of migraine, a patient could do this sequence twice per day. It has been approved for acute care and prevention of migraine and, along with other medication for cluster headaches, it is easy to use and approved for almost any kind of headache. Unfortunately, it is extremely expensive for patients and is not covered well by insurance unless the patient is a veteran or goes to a Veterans Health Administration hospital for care. 

There are a few other devices that also work for migraine. Most electrical stimulation devices are costly, but we do hope that insurance companies will begin to cover them soon. Most devices cause few adverse events, have few contraindications, and will be used more as they become more affordable.

Can you summarize migraine treatment for us in one paragraph?

No, but I will try. We have many acute care treatments for migraine that are effective. Some, such as the triptans, do constrict blood vessels, and certain patients should not be taking medications that affect blood vessels. Some medications cause certain side effects or take too long to work, and we have other options for those patients. If a patient has ≥4 headache days per month or fewer associated with a lot of disability, we need to consider prevention. We have older preventives such as beta blockers and epilepsy medications, which are less expensive and can work but usually have many side effects. Now we have 4 mAbs that bind to CGRP or its receptor, which work well for a month or more with few adverse events. We also have 2 oral gepants for prevention. When you add in several devices, I have so many options for my patients today that I am a lucky neurologist, and my patients are even luckier!

SAN DIEGO – Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil (Provigil), and a combination of both treatments all reduce fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) – but the combination has an edge when it comes to overall perceived benefits, new research shows.

As well, study results suggest that individuals with poorer sleep hygiene may benefit more from CBT, researchers noted.

“Clinicians should consider clinical characteristics and overall treatment goals when selecting fatigue interventions, to offer a more personalized approach for MS fatigue,” said study investigator Tiffany Braley, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Incapacitating symptom

Dr. Braley noted that fatigue affects up to 90% of patients with MS and is the most incapacitating symptom for more than 40% of these patients. In addition, fatigue is a strong predictor of reduced work productivity, unemployment, reduced social participation, and reduced quality of life.

“Given the impact that fatigue has on the health and well-being of people with MS, it is essential to find ways to optimize the current treatments that we have at hand for fatigue in MS in the most patient-centered way possible,” Dr. Braley said.

CBT, which teaches strategies to target maladaptive thoughts and beliefs, is one of the most promising behavioral strategies, the investigators noted. It has been shown to be effective for multiple conditions including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, insomnia, and pain.

For MS fatigue, CBT is considered a second-line treatment. Moderate and sustained efficacy have been shown across trials but access remains limited, Dr. Braley reported.

Modafinil, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat sleepiness secondary to obstructive sleep apnea and narcolepsy, is commonly used off-label to treat MS-related fatigue. However, prior trials have yielded mixed results regarding the efficacy of the drug for MS fatigue, said Dr. Braley.

Also, different behavioral and pharmacologic therapies have never been combined to determine if there might be a synergistic benefit, she added.

The new 12-week parallel-arm, analyst-blinded COMBO-MS trial included 336 participants (76.2% women; mean age, 48.8 years). Most of the patients (85.1%) were White and most (71.1%) had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).

Participants were randomly assigned to receive 8 weekly and then two “booster” sessions of telephone-delivered one-on-one CBT, or modafinil with the dose generally ranging from 100 to 200 mg per day, or a combination of the two therapies.

The primary outcome measure was change in fatigue on the self-report Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), using online surveys. The mean baseline MFIS was 52.7.

Study participants also completed questionnaires on disability, sleep disorders, sleep hygiene, and sleepiness (Epworth sleepiness scale).

Covariates included demographics, anxiety based on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, pain score on the Brief Pain Inventory, baseline fatigue score, and physical activity.
 

Clinically, statistically significant

The overall treatment effect on the total MFIS score at 12 weeks was positive for each group. “Each treatment arm was associated with a clinically significant and a statistically significant within-group reduction in MSIF score from 15 to 17 points,” Dr. Braley reported.

“But even though the combination therapy ended up having the highest absolute reduction, it ultimately was not statistically significant,” she added.

Responder analyses showed almost two-thirds of each treatment group experienced at least a 10-point reduction in MSIF, which is considered clinically significant. In addition, more than 50% experienced at least 25% reduction in MSIF. “Again, although the combination therapy seemed to have a higher proportion of responders, this was not statistically significant,” said Dr. Braley.

A secondary outcome was the self-reported Patient Global Impression of Change, which rates overall symptoms and quality of life. More participants in all groups said their symptoms and quality of life at study’s end were somewhat better, moderately better, a definite improvement, or a great deal better.

But here the combination therapy was significantly better than the other interventions. “This suggests there may be more subjective benefits of combination therapy that we’re not capturing” with other measures, Dr. Braley noted.

Sleep hygiene significantly moderated the treatment effect (P = .03). As sleep hygiene worsened, the effect of modafinil monotherapy relative to CBT monotherapy appeared to diminish, and behavior therapy started to have more benefit relative to modafinil therapy, the investigators noted.

“Our results suggest that people with MS who have problems maintaining healthy sleep behaviors could potentially see more benefit from behaviorally based treatments that target sleep habits as part of the fatigue management plan, as opposed to a stimulant medication that could make sleep more difficult to maintain,” Dr. Braley said.

“On the other hand, people with good sleep hygiene may sufficiently respond to modafinil. For those who believe their mood, activity limitations, and quality of life are closely linked to their fatigue, combination therapy may offer more global benefits,” she added.

Sleepiness, as assessed with the Epworth sleepiness scale, had a direct effect on treatment response (P = .0087) that did not vary by intervention. Those who were sleepier had greater reductions on MSIF scores.

Dr. Braley noted that there was an excellent adherence rate, with only 26 participants discontinuing the study. Of these, 20 were from the modafinil group and discontinued because of side effects, and 6 were from the CBT group and discontinued because of time constraints. There were no serious adverse events reported.
 

Important lifestyle factor

Session cochair Deepak Kaushik, PhD, of the department of biomedical sciences, Memorial University, St John’s, Nfld., said the benefit of CBT for MS fatigue “definitely needs to be looked into further.”

Sleep deprivation, along with ensuing fatigue, is among the lifestyle factors that play a vital role in MS, said Dr. Kaushik, who was not involved with the research.

The effect of CBT on fatigue is likely through stress reduction, he said, adding that the immune system is significantly affected by stress. “We know the immune system has a direct linkage to the way you feel [and] your stress response to situations,” so it makes sense that CBT lowers fatigue because it reduces stress, Dr. Kaushik said.

The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Braley and Dr. Kaushik have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil (Provigil), and a combination of both treatments all reduce fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) – but the combination has an edge when it comes to overall perceived benefits, new research shows.

As well, study results suggest that individuals with poorer sleep hygiene may benefit more from CBT, researchers noted.

“Clinicians should consider clinical characteristics and overall treatment goals when selecting fatigue interventions, to offer a more personalized approach for MS fatigue,” said study investigator Tiffany Braley, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Incapacitating symptom

Dr. Braley noted that fatigue affects up to 90% of patients with MS and is the most incapacitating symptom for more than 40% of these patients. In addition, fatigue is a strong predictor of reduced work productivity, unemployment, reduced social participation, and reduced quality of life.

“Given the impact that fatigue has on the health and well-being of people with MS, it is essential to find ways to optimize the current treatments that we have at hand for fatigue in MS in the most patient-centered way possible,” Dr. Braley said.

CBT, which teaches strategies to target maladaptive thoughts and beliefs, is one of the most promising behavioral strategies, the investigators noted. It has been shown to be effective for multiple conditions including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, insomnia, and pain.

For MS fatigue, CBT is considered a second-line treatment. Moderate and sustained efficacy have been shown across trials but access remains limited, Dr. Braley reported.

Modafinil, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat sleepiness secondary to obstructive sleep apnea and narcolepsy, is commonly used off-label to treat MS-related fatigue. However, prior trials have yielded mixed results regarding the efficacy of the drug for MS fatigue, said Dr. Braley.

Also, different behavioral and pharmacologic therapies have never been combined to determine if there might be a synergistic benefit, she added.

The new 12-week parallel-arm, analyst-blinded COMBO-MS trial included 336 participants (76.2% women; mean age, 48.8 years). Most of the patients (85.1%) were White and most (71.1%) had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).

Participants were randomly assigned to receive 8 weekly and then two “booster” sessions of telephone-delivered one-on-one CBT, or modafinil with the dose generally ranging from 100 to 200 mg per day, or a combination of the two therapies.

The primary outcome measure was change in fatigue on the self-report Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), using online surveys. The mean baseline MFIS was 52.7.

Study participants also completed questionnaires on disability, sleep disorders, sleep hygiene, and sleepiness (Epworth sleepiness scale).

Covariates included demographics, anxiety based on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, pain score on the Brief Pain Inventory, baseline fatigue score, and physical activity.
 

Clinically, statistically significant

The overall treatment effect on the total MFIS score at 12 weeks was positive for each group. “Each treatment arm was associated with a clinically significant and a statistically significant within-group reduction in MSIF score from 15 to 17 points,” Dr. Braley reported.

“But even though the combination therapy ended up having the highest absolute reduction, it ultimately was not statistically significant,” she added.

Responder analyses showed almost two-thirds of each treatment group experienced at least a 10-point reduction in MSIF, which is considered clinically significant. In addition, more than 50% experienced at least 25% reduction in MSIF. “Again, although the combination therapy seemed to have a higher proportion of responders, this was not statistically significant,” said Dr. Braley.

A secondary outcome was the self-reported Patient Global Impression of Change, which rates overall symptoms and quality of life. More participants in all groups said their symptoms and quality of life at study’s end were somewhat better, moderately better, a definite improvement, or a great deal better.

But here the combination therapy was significantly better than the other interventions. “This suggests there may be more subjective benefits of combination therapy that we’re not capturing” with other measures, Dr. Braley noted.

Sleep hygiene significantly moderated the treatment effect (P = .03). As sleep hygiene worsened, the effect of modafinil monotherapy relative to CBT monotherapy appeared to diminish, and behavior therapy started to have more benefit relative to modafinil therapy, the investigators noted.

“Our results suggest that people with MS who have problems maintaining healthy sleep behaviors could potentially see more benefit from behaviorally based treatments that target sleep habits as part of the fatigue management plan, as opposed to a stimulant medication that could make sleep more difficult to maintain,” Dr. Braley said.

“On the other hand, people with good sleep hygiene may sufficiently respond to modafinil. For those who believe their mood, activity limitations, and quality of life are closely linked to their fatigue, combination therapy may offer more global benefits,” she added.

Sleepiness, as assessed with the Epworth sleepiness scale, had a direct effect on treatment response (P = .0087) that did not vary by intervention. Those who were sleepier had greater reductions on MSIF scores.

Dr. Braley noted that there was an excellent adherence rate, with only 26 participants discontinuing the study. Of these, 20 were from the modafinil group and discontinued because of side effects, and 6 were from the CBT group and discontinued because of time constraints. There were no serious adverse events reported.
 

Important lifestyle factor

Session cochair Deepak Kaushik, PhD, of the department of biomedical sciences, Memorial University, St John’s, Nfld., said the benefit of CBT for MS fatigue “definitely needs to be looked into further.”

Sleep deprivation, along with ensuing fatigue, is among the lifestyle factors that play a vital role in MS, said Dr. Kaushik, who was not involved with the research.

The effect of CBT on fatigue is likely through stress reduction, he said, adding that the immune system is significantly affected by stress. “We know the immune system has a direct linkage to the way you feel [and] your stress response to situations,” so it makes sense that CBT lowers fatigue because it reduces stress, Dr. Kaushik said.

The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Braley and Dr. Kaushik have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil (Provigil), and a combination of both treatments all reduce fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) – but the combination has an edge when it comes to overall perceived benefits, new research shows.

As well, study results suggest that individuals with poorer sleep hygiene may benefit more from CBT, researchers noted.

“Clinicians should consider clinical characteristics and overall treatment goals when selecting fatigue interventions, to offer a more personalized approach for MS fatigue,” said study investigator Tiffany Braley, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Incapacitating symptom

Dr. Braley noted that fatigue affects up to 90% of patients with MS and is the most incapacitating symptom for more than 40% of these patients. In addition, fatigue is a strong predictor of reduced work productivity, unemployment, reduced social participation, and reduced quality of life.

“Given the impact that fatigue has on the health and well-being of people with MS, it is essential to find ways to optimize the current treatments that we have at hand for fatigue in MS in the most patient-centered way possible,” Dr. Braley said.

CBT, which teaches strategies to target maladaptive thoughts and beliefs, is one of the most promising behavioral strategies, the investigators noted. It has been shown to be effective for multiple conditions including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, insomnia, and pain.

For MS fatigue, CBT is considered a second-line treatment. Moderate and sustained efficacy have been shown across trials but access remains limited, Dr. Braley reported.

Modafinil, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat sleepiness secondary to obstructive sleep apnea and narcolepsy, is commonly used off-label to treat MS-related fatigue. However, prior trials have yielded mixed results regarding the efficacy of the drug for MS fatigue, said Dr. Braley.

Also, different behavioral and pharmacologic therapies have never been combined to determine if there might be a synergistic benefit, she added.

The new 12-week parallel-arm, analyst-blinded COMBO-MS trial included 336 participants (76.2% women; mean age, 48.8 years). Most of the patients (85.1%) were White and most (71.1%) had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).

Participants were randomly assigned to receive 8 weekly and then two “booster” sessions of telephone-delivered one-on-one CBT, or modafinil with the dose generally ranging from 100 to 200 mg per day, or a combination of the two therapies.

The primary outcome measure was change in fatigue on the self-report Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), using online surveys. The mean baseline MFIS was 52.7.

Study participants also completed questionnaires on disability, sleep disorders, sleep hygiene, and sleepiness (Epworth sleepiness scale).

Covariates included demographics, anxiety based on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, pain score on the Brief Pain Inventory, baseline fatigue score, and physical activity.
 

Clinically, statistically significant

The overall treatment effect on the total MFIS score at 12 weeks was positive for each group. “Each treatment arm was associated with a clinically significant and a statistically significant within-group reduction in MSIF score from 15 to 17 points,” Dr. Braley reported.

“But even though the combination therapy ended up having the highest absolute reduction, it ultimately was not statistically significant,” she added.

Responder analyses showed almost two-thirds of each treatment group experienced at least a 10-point reduction in MSIF, which is considered clinically significant. In addition, more than 50% experienced at least 25% reduction in MSIF. “Again, although the combination therapy seemed to have a higher proportion of responders, this was not statistically significant,” said Dr. Braley.

A secondary outcome was the self-reported Patient Global Impression of Change, which rates overall symptoms and quality of life. More participants in all groups said their symptoms and quality of life at study’s end were somewhat better, moderately better, a definite improvement, or a great deal better.

But here the combination therapy was significantly better than the other interventions. “This suggests there may be more subjective benefits of combination therapy that we’re not capturing” with other measures, Dr. Braley noted.

Sleep hygiene significantly moderated the treatment effect (P = .03). As sleep hygiene worsened, the effect of modafinil monotherapy relative to CBT monotherapy appeared to diminish, and behavior therapy started to have more benefit relative to modafinil therapy, the investigators noted.

“Our results suggest that people with MS who have problems maintaining healthy sleep behaviors could potentially see more benefit from behaviorally based treatments that target sleep habits as part of the fatigue management plan, as opposed to a stimulant medication that could make sleep more difficult to maintain,” Dr. Braley said.

“On the other hand, people with good sleep hygiene may sufficiently respond to modafinil. For those who believe their mood, activity limitations, and quality of life are closely linked to their fatigue, combination therapy may offer more global benefits,” she added.

Sleepiness, as assessed with the Epworth sleepiness scale, had a direct effect on treatment response (P = .0087) that did not vary by intervention. Those who were sleepier had greater reductions on MSIF scores.

Dr. Braley noted that there was an excellent adherence rate, with only 26 participants discontinuing the study. Of these, 20 were from the modafinil group and discontinued because of side effects, and 6 were from the CBT group and discontinued because of time constraints. There were no serious adverse events reported.
 

Important lifestyle factor

Session cochair Deepak Kaushik, PhD, of the department of biomedical sciences, Memorial University, St John’s, Nfld., said the benefit of CBT for MS fatigue “definitely needs to be looked into further.”

Sleep deprivation, along with ensuing fatigue, is among the lifestyle factors that play a vital role in MS, said Dr. Kaushik, who was not involved with the research.

The effect of CBT on fatigue is likely through stress reduction, he said, adding that the immune system is significantly affected by stress. “We know the immune system has a direct linkage to the way you feel [and] your stress response to situations,” so it makes sense that CBT lowers fatigue because it reduces stress, Dr. Kaushik said.

The study received funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Braley and Dr. Kaushik have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent report in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association suggested that, at least for now, we need to lower the bar in Alzheimer’s disease drug trials.

Their point is that there’s no consensus on “clinically meaningful benefit.” Does it mean a complete cure for Alzheimer’s disease, with reversal of deficits? Or stopping disease progression where it is? Or just slowing things down enough that it means something to patients, family members, and caregivers?

The last one is, realistically, where we are now.

The problem with this is that many nonmedical people equate “treatment” with “cure,” which isn’t close to the truth for many diseases. In Alzheimer’s disease, it’s even trickier to figure out. There’s a disparity between imaging (which suggests something that should be quite effective) and clinical results (which aren’t nearly as impressive as the PET scans).

So when I prescribe any of the Alzheimer’s medications, I make it pretty clear to patients, and more importantly the patient’s family, what they can and can’t expect. This isn’t easy, because most will come back a month later, tell me their loved one is no better, and want to try something else. So I have to explain it again. These people aren’t stupid. They’re hopeful, and also facing an impossible question. “Better” is a lot easier to judge than “slowed progression.”

“Better” is a great word for migraines. Or seizures. Or Parkinson’s disease. These are condition where patients and families can tell us whether they’ve seen an improvement.

But with the current treatments for Alzheimer’s disease we’re asking patients and families “do you think you’ve gotten any worse than you would have if you hadn’t taken the drug at all?”

That’s an impossible question to answer, unless you’re following people with objective cognitive data over time and comparing them against a placebo group, which is how these drugs got here in the first place – we know they do that.

But to a family watching their loved ones go downhill, such reassurances aren’t what they want to hear.

Regrettably, it’s where things stand. While I want to strive for absolute success in these things, today it’s simply not possible. Maybe it never will be, though I hope it is.

But, for now, I agree that we need to reframe what we’re going to consider clinically meaningful. Sometimes you have to settle for a flight of stairs instead of an elevator, but still hope that you’ll get to the top. It just takes longer, and it’s better than not going anywhere at all.

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

A recent report in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association suggested that, at least for now, we need to lower the bar in Alzheimer’s disease drug trials.

Their point is that there’s no consensus on “clinically meaningful benefit.” Does it mean a complete cure for Alzheimer’s disease, with reversal of deficits? Or stopping disease progression where it is? Or just slowing things down enough that it means something to patients, family members, and caregivers?

The last one is, realistically, where we are now.

The problem with this is that many nonmedical people equate “treatment” with “cure,” which isn’t close to the truth for many diseases. In Alzheimer’s disease, it’s even trickier to figure out. There’s a disparity between imaging (which suggests something that should be quite effective) and clinical results (which aren’t nearly as impressive as the PET scans).

So when I prescribe any of the Alzheimer’s medications, I make it pretty clear to patients, and more importantly the patient’s family, what they can and can’t expect. This isn’t easy, because most will come back a month later, tell me their loved one is no better, and want to try something else. So I have to explain it again. These people aren’t stupid. They’re hopeful, and also facing an impossible question. “Better” is a lot easier to judge than “slowed progression.”

“Better” is a great word for migraines. Or seizures. Or Parkinson’s disease. These are condition where patients and families can tell us whether they’ve seen an improvement.

But with the current treatments for Alzheimer’s disease we’re asking patients and families “do you think you’ve gotten any worse than you would have if you hadn’t taken the drug at all?”

That’s an impossible question to answer, unless you’re following people with objective cognitive data over time and comparing them against a placebo group, which is how these drugs got here in the first place – we know they do that.

But to a family watching their loved ones go downhill, such reassurances aren’t what they want to hear.

Regrettably, it’s where things stand. While I want to strive for absolute success in these things, today it’s simply not possible. Maybe it never will be, though I hope it is.

But, for now, I agree that we need to reframe what we’re going to consider clinically meaningful. Sometimes you have to settle for a flight of stairs instead of an elevator, but still hope that you’ll get to the top. It just takes longer, and it’s better than not going anywhere at all.

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

A recent report in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association suggested that, at least for now, we need to lower the bar in Alzheimer’s disease drug trials.

Their point is that there’s no consensus on “clinically meaningful benefit.” Does it mean a complete cure for Alzheimer’s disease, with reversal of deficits? Or stopping disease progression where it is? Or just slowing things down enough that it means something to patients, family members, and caregivers?

The last one is, realistically, where we are now.

The problem with this is that many nonmedical people equate “treatment” with “cure,” which isn’t close to the truth for many diseases. In Alzheimer’s disease, it’s even trickier to figure out. There’s a disparity between imaging (which suggests something that should be quite effective) and clinical results (which aren’t nearly as impressive as the PET scans).

So when I prescribe any of the Alzheimer’s medications, I make it pretty clear to patients, and more importantly the patient’s family, what they can and can’t expect. This isn’t easy, because most will come back a month later, tell me their loved one is no better, and want to try something else. So I have to explain it again. These people aren’t stupid. They’re hopeful, and also facing an impossible question. “Better” is a lot easier to judge than “slowed progression.”

“Better” is a great word for migraines. Or seizures. Or Parkinson’s disease. These are condition where patients and families can tell us whether they’ve seen an improvement.

But with the current treatments for Alzheimer’s disease we’re asking patients and families “do you think you’ve gotten any worse than you would have if you hadn’t taken the drug at all?”

That’s an impossible question to answer, unless you’re following people with objective cognitive data over time and comparing them against a placebo group, which is how these drugs got here in the first place – we know they do that.

But to a family watching their loved ones go downhill, such reassurances aren’t what they want to hear.

Regrettably, it’s where things stand. While I want to strive for absolute success in these things, today it’s simply not possible. Maybe it never will be, though I hope it is.

But, for now, I agree that we need to reframe what we’re going to consider clinically meaningful. Sometimes you have to settle for a flight of stairs instead of an elevator, but still hope that you’ll get to the top. It just takes longer, and it’s better than not going anywhere at all.

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

WASHINGTON – Late lumen loss (LLL) after percutaneous interventions (PCI) can be reduced significantly by a daily glass of beet juice, according to a phase 2 randomized trial.

The protection against LLL, attributed to the nitrate contained in beet juice, was accompanied by a trend for a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), according to Krishnaraj Rathod, MBBS, BMedSci, PhD, who presented results at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The study grew out of relatively recent evidence that ingestion of nitrate-rich foods, such as beets, can trigger noncanonical pathways for nitric oxide generation, sometimes referred to as the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide sequence. Dr. Rathod cited experimental evidence associating this pathway with the traditional benefits of NO generation, such as anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In this study, 300 patients scheduled for PCI to treat stable angina were randomized to the experimental arm of nitrate-rich beetroot juice or the control arm of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice. Each had a 70-mL glass of juice once daily. Dr. Rathod, a senior interventional cardiology registrar, Barts Heart Centre, London, described this as the equivalent of about four beets.

The primary endpoint of the study was in-stent LLL assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months.

MACE, defined as death, MI, need for revascularization, and in-stent thrombosis, was assessed at 3, 9, 12, and 24 months. In addition, markers of NO activation, platelet reactivity, and inflammation were monitored.

Lumen loss reduced less than 50%

On OCA, the median stent LLL at 6 months was 0.244 mm in the nitrate-depleted beet juice group and 0.117 mm (P = .0165) in the group that received natural beet juice. The mean segment LLL similarly favored the natural beet juice (0.269 vs. 0.050 mm; P = .0011).

The same effect was reflected in the measurement of mean change in minimum lumen diameter at 6 months. From baseline, this in-stent measure was reduced at 6 months by 0.244 mm in the control group, but by only 0.117 mm in the group receiving the dietary nitrate (P = .0154 for two-way analysis of variance).

Over 24 months of follow-up, there were 18 MACE events in the control arm versus 9 in the arm randomized to dietary nitrate (P = .0718). There were no in-stent thromboses observed in either group, but death (two vs. five), MI (one vs. six), and target-vessel revascularization (six vs. seven) were all numerically lower in the group receiving dietary nitrate.

“Once-a-day oral dietary nitrate for 6 months was well tolerated and safe,” Dr. Rathod reported at the meeting.

Asked specifically about the taste of the daily glass of beet juice, Dr. Rathod acknowledged that some patients were not enamored, but many had no objections or even liked the taste.

The patients were reasonably representative of a PCI population. The mean age in both groups was 61 years. There were no significant differences in body mass index (approximately 29 kg/m²) or proportion with diabetes (22%), hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia (about 70% in both groups) and other comorbidities.

More PCI was performed in the left anterior descending artery (36.7% vs. 44.0%) in the control group, while less PCI was performed in the right coronary (27.3% vs. 30.7%). Neither difference was significant. The vast majority (~90%) of patients received drug-eluting stents with a mean of 1.4 implanted. Procedural success was 100% in both groups.

Discharge medications, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, were similar in the two groups.

Results characterized as highly positive

Based on the 53% reduction in LLL at 6 months and the trend for a MACE reduction, Dr. Rathod concluded that the results were highly positive.

“These results suggest that dietary nitrate may have a therapeutic role in reducing restenosis following PCI for stable angina,” he said.

In the discussion, several panelists pointed out that nearly one-third of patients were not available for evaluation at 6 months (41 of 150 in the experimental group and 51 of 150 in the control group) with further attrition at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Of these about half were lost to follow-up and the other half withdrew.

The lack of follow-up on such a high proportion of participants is one weakness of this study,” acknowledged Hector M. Garcia-Garcia, MD, PhD, a cardiovascular researcher at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. However, he remains enthusiastic about the premise.

“It was encouraging to see every signal moving in the right direction,” said Dr. Garcia, who consulted with Dr. Rathod’s group on the design of the study. He called these data “promising,” and said they provide support for larger trial for a treatment with potential benefits at low cost.

George Dangas, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was among panelists who seemed surprised by such positive findings from a simple but novel concept. However, he remains open to further evaluations.

“As with any surprising result, further confirmation in a large and multicenter trial should be anticipated,” he said in an interview. If, as this study suggests, dietary changes are capable of providing therapeutic NO at the vascular level, he suggested studies to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects or other mechanistic benefits would be helpful.

“Other sources of oral nitrate would also be a worthwhile investigation,” he said.

Dr. Rathod reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Garcia-Garcia reports ties to Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CorFlow, Medtronic, Neovasc, Phillips, and Shockwave. Dr. Dangas reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Medtronic.

WASHINGTON – Late lumen loss (LLL) after percutaneous interventions (PCI) can be reduced significantly by a daily glass of beet juice, according to a phase 2 randomized trial.

The protection against LLL, attributed to the nitrate contained in beet juice, was accompanied by a trend for a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), according to Krishnaraj Rathod, MBBS, BMedSci, PhD, who presented results at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The study grew out of relatively recent evidence that ingestion of nitrate-rich foods, such as beets, can trigger noncanonical pathways for nitric oxide generation, sometimes referred to as the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide sequence. Dr. Rathod cited experimental evidence associating this pathway with the traditional benefits of NO generation, such as anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In this study, 300 patients scheduled for PCI to treat stable angina were randomized to the experimental arm of nitrate-rich beetroot juice or the control arm of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice. Each had a 70-mL glass of juice once daily. Dr. Rathod, a senior interventional cardiology registrar, Barts Heart Centre, London, described this as the equivalent of about four beets.

The primary endpoint of the study was in-stent LLL assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months.

MACE, defined as death, MI, need for revascularization, and in-stent thrombosis, was assessed at 3, 9, 12, and 24 months. In addition, markers of NO activation, platelet reactivity, and inflammation were monitored.

Lumen loss reduced less than 50%

On OCA, the median stent LLL at 6 months was 0.244 mm in the nitrate-depleted beet juice group and 0.117 mm (P = .0165) in the group that received natural beet juice. The mean segment LLL similarly favored the natural beet juice (0.269 vs. 0.050 mm; P = .0011).

The same effect was reflected in the measurement of mean change in minimum lumen diameter at 6 months. From baseline, this in-stent measure was reduced at 6 months by 0.244 mm in the control group, but by only 0.117 mm in the group receiving the dietary nitrate (P = .0154 for two-way analysis of variance).

Over 24 months of follow-up, there were 18 MACE events in the control arm versus 9 in the arm randomized to dietary nitrate (P = .0718). There were no in-stent thromboses observed in either group, but death (two vs. five), MI (one vs. six), and target-vessel revascularization (six vs. seven) were all numerically lower in the group receiving dietary nitrate.

“Once-a-day oral dietary nitrate for 6 months was well tolerated and safe,” Dr. Rathod reported at the meeting.

Asked specifically about the taste of the daily glass of beet juice, Dr. Rathod acknowledged that some patients were not enamored, but many had no objections or even liked the taste.

The patients were reasonably representative of a PCI population. The mean age in both groups was 61 years. There were no significant differences in body mass index (approximately 29 kg/m²) or proportion with diabetes (22%), hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia (about 70% in both groups) and other comorbidities.

More PCI was performed in the left anterior descending artery (36.7% vs. 44.0%) in the control group, while less PCI was performed in the right coronary (27.3% vs. 30.7%). Neither difference was significant. The vast majority (~90%) of patients received drug-eluting stents with a mean of 1.4 implanted. Procedural success was 100% in both groups.

Discharge medications, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, were similar in the two groups.

Results characterized as highly positive

Based on the 53% reduction in LLL at 6 months and the trend for a MACE reduction, Dr. Rathod concluded that the results were highly positive.

“These results suggest that dietary nitrate may have a therapeutic role in reducing restenosis following PCI for stable angina,” he said.

In the discussion, several panelists pointed out that nearly one-third of patients were not available for evaluation at 6 months (41 of 150 in the experimental group and 51 of 150 in the control group) with further attrition at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Of these about half were lost to follow-up and the other half withdrew.

The lack of follow-up on such a high proportion of participants is one weakness of this study,” acknowledged Hector M. Garcia-Garcia, MD, PhD, a cardiovascular researcher at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. However, he remains enthusiastic about the premise.

“It was encouraging to see every signal moving in the right direction,” said Dr. Garcia, who consulted with Dr. Rathod’s group on the design of the study. He called these data “promising,” and said they provide support for larger trial for a treatment with potential benefits at low cost.

George Dangas, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was among panelists who seemed surprised by such positive findings from a simple but novel concept. However, he remains open to further evaluations.

“As with any surprising result, further confirmation in a large and multicenter trial should be anticipated,” he said in an interview. If, as this study suggests, dietary changes are capable of providing therapeutic NO at the vascular level, he suggested studies to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects or other mechanistic benefits would be helpful.

“Other sources of oral nitrate would also be a worthwhile investigation,” he said.

Dr. Rathod reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Garcia-Garcia reports ties to Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CorFlow, Medtronic, Neovasc, Phillips, and Shockwave. Dr. Dangas reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Medtronic.

WASHINGTON – Late lumen loss (LLL) after percutaneous interventions (PCI) can be reduced significantly by a daily glass of beet juice, according to a phase 2 randomized trial.

The protection against LLL, attributed to the nitrate contained in beet juice, was accompanied by a trend for a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), according to Krishnaraj Rathod, MBBS, BMedSci, PhD, who presented results at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The study grew out of relatively recent evidence that ingestion of nitrate-rich foods, such as beets, can trigger noncanonical pathways for nitric oxide generation, sometimes referred to as the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide sequence. Dr. Rathod cited experimental evidence associating this pathway with the traditional benefits of NO generation, such as anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In this study, 300 patients scheduled for PCI to treat stable angina were randomized to the experimental arm of nitrate-rich beetroot juice or the control arm of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice. Each had a 70-mL glass of juice once daily. Dr. Rathod, a senior interventional cardiology registrar, Barts Heart Centre, London, described this as the equivalent of about four beets.

The primary endpoint of the study was in-stent LLL assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months.

MACE, defined as death, MI, need for revascularization, and in-stent thrombosis, was assessed at 3, 9, 12, and 24 months. In addition, markers of NO activation, platelet reactivity, and inflammation were monitored.

Lumen loss reduced less than 50%

On OCA, the median stent LLL at 6 months was 0.244 mm in the nitrate-depleted beet juice group and 0.117 mm (P = .0165) in the group that received natural beet juice. The mean segment LLL similarly favored the natural beet juice (0.269 vs. 0.050 mm; P = .0011).

The same effect was reflected in the measurement of mean change in minimum lumen diameter at 6 months. From baseline, this in-stent measure was reduced at 6 months by 0.244 mm in the control group, but by only 0.117 mm in the group receiving the dietary nitrate (P = .0154 for two-way analysis of variance).

Over 24 months of follow-up, there were 18 MACE events in the control arm versus 9 in the arm randomized to dietary nitrate (P = .0718). There were no in-stent thromboses observed in either group, but death (two vs. five), MI (one vs. six), and target-vessel revascularization (six vs. seven) were all numerically lower in the group receiving dietary nitrate.

“Once-a-day oral dietary nitrate for 6 months was well tolerated and safe,” Dr. Rathod reported at the meeting.

Asked specifically about the taste of the daily glass of beet juice, Dr. Rathod acknowledged that some patients were not enamored, but many had no objections or even liked the taste.

The patients were reasonably representative of a PCI population. The mean age in both groups was 61 years. There were no significant differences in body mass index (approximately 29 kg/m²) or proportion with diabetes (22%), hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia (about 70% in both groups) and other comorbidities.

More PCI was performed in the left anterior descending artery (36.7% vs. 44.0%) in the control group, while less PCI was performed in the right coronary (27.3% vs. 30.7%). Neither difference was significant. The vast majority (~90%) of patients received drug-eluting stents with a mean of 1.4 implanted. Procedural success was 100% in both groups.

Discharge medications, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, were similar in the two groups.

Results characterized as highly positive

Based on the 53% reduction in LLL at 6 months and the trend for a MACE reduction, Dr. Rathod concluded that the results were highly positive.

“These results suggest that dietary nitrate may have a therapeutic role in reducing restenosis following PCI for stable angina,” he said.

In the discussion, several panelists pointed out that nearly one-third of patients were not available for evaluation at 6 months (41 of 150 in the experimental group and 51 of 150 in the control group) with further attrition at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Of these about half were lost to follow-up and the other half withdrew.

The lack of follow-up on such a high proportion of participants is one weakness of this study,” acknowledged Hector M. Garcia-Garcia, MD, PhD, a cardiovascular researcher at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. However, he remains enthusiastic about the premise.

“It was encouraging to see every signal moving in the right direction,” said Dr. Garcia, who consulted with Dr. Rathod’s group on the design of the study. He called these data “promising,” and said they provide support for larger trial for a treatment with potential benefits at low cost.

George Dangas, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was among panelists who seemed surprised by such positive findings from a simple but novel concept. However, he remains open to further evaluations.

“As with any surprising result, further confirmation in a large and multicenter trial should be anticipated,” he said in an interview. If, as this study suggests, dietary changes are capable of providing therapeutic NO at the vascular level, he suggested studies to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects or other mechanistic benefits would be helpful.

“Other sources of oral nitrate would also be a worthwhile investigation,” he said.

Dr. Rathod reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Garcia-Garcia reports ties to Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CorFlow, Medtronic, Neovasc, Phillips, and Shockwave. Dr. Dangas reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Medtronic.

The age-adjusted incidence rate of pancreatic cancer is increasing in young women in the United States, and it doesn’t show signs of slowing down, according to a new study published in Gastroenterology.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Between 2001 and 2018, there was a greater than 200% difference in the incidence trend between men and women for ages 15-34, wrote Yazan Abboud, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the pancreaticobiliary department of the Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

“The exact cause of the trend among younger women is unclear and may be driven by sex-based disproportional exposure or response to known or yet-to-be-explored risk factors,” they wrote. “Future efforts should aim to elucidate the causes of such a trend with the goal to formulate possible preventive measures.”

Although previous studies have found increasing pancreatic cancer incidence rates, especially in younger women, the data haven’t been externally validated outside of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, they wrote. In addition, there are limited data about the contributing factors, such as race, histopathological subtype, tumor location, and stage at diagnosis.

Using SEER-excluded data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), Dr. Abboud and colleagues conducted a population-based time-trend analysis of pancreatic cancer incidence rates from 2001 to 2018 in younger adults under age 55, including the role of demographics and tumor characteristics. They analyzed age-adjusted incidence rates (aIR), mortality rates, annual percentage change (APC), and average annual percentage change (AAPC) for ages 55 and older and ages 55 and younger. In addition, the research team evaluated the impact of incidence trends on sex-specific mortality trends in younger adults using the CDC’s National Center of Health Statistics database.

Between 2001 and 2018, 748,132 patients were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. After excluding SEER data, 454,611 patients met the inclusion criteria. About 48.9% were women.

The overall aIR of pancreatic cancer during that time was 12.18 per 100,000 people. Women had a significantly lower aIR, at 10.69 per 100,000, compared with men at 13.95 per 100,000.

In general, pancreatic cancer aIR significantly increased during that time (AAPC = 1.17%). Sex-specific trends increased among both women (AAPC = 1.27%) and men (AAPC = 1.14%), though they showed no significant difference and were parallel.

In ages 55 and older, 401,419 patients (49.7% women) were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The aIR significantly increased during the study period (AAPC = 1.11%), with sex-specific aIR increasing in both women (AAPC = 1.11%) and men (AAPC = 1.17%), without a significant difference.

However, a difference appeared in the 53,051 patients (42.9% women) who were ages 55 and younger. The aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.29%), with faster jumps in women (AAPC = 2.36%), compared with men (AAPC = .62%). There was an absolute significant difference of 1.74%.

The trends continued in breakdowns by age. For 50,599 patients (42.2% women) between ages 35 and 54, the aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.10%). Sex-specific aIR increased among women (AAPC = 2.09%) but remained stable among men (AAPC = 0.54%), with an absolute significant difference of 1.55%.

In the youngest cohort of 2,452 patients (57.3% women) between ages 15 and 34, aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 4.93). Sex-specific aIR also increased in both women (AAPC = 6.45%) and men (AAPC = 2.97%), with an absolute significant difference of 3.48%.

By race, although White women under age 55 experienced increasing aIR at a greater rate than men (AAPC difference = 1.59%), an even more dramatic increase was seen in Black women, as compared to counterpart men (AAPC difference = 2.23%). Sex-specific trends in people of other races were parallel.

Based on tumor characteristics in ages 55 and younger, the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma histopathological subtype had an AAPC difference of 0.89%, and a tumor location in the head-of-pancreas had an AAPC difference of 1.64%.

When evaluating tumors based on stage-at-diagnosis, the AAPC difference was nonsignificant in all subgroups. However, sex-specific trends differed in tumors diagnosed at localized stages, suggesting that aIR in women may be increasing at a greater rate than in men (AAPC difference = 1.64%).

Among 64,239 patients (39.3% women) who died from pancreatic cancer under age 55, the mortality rates were unchanged in women (AAPC = –0.09%) but declined in men (AAPC = –0.64%), with an absolute significant AAPC difference of 0.54%.

UCLA

“Pancreatic cancer has a very poor overall survival, accounting for 7% of cancer-related deaths. The incidence of cancers, in general, is expected to rise as life expectancy increases in the United States,” said Danny Issa, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved with this study.

“Recently, noncomparative studies showed a possible increase in the incidence of pancreatic cancer in younger White women and in older White men and women. These reports had limitations,” he said. “The findings of this study are monumental as they confirmed that age-adjusted incidence rates have been increasing at a higher rate in younger women compared to younger men.”

In addition, Dr. Issa said, the significant increases among Black women for adenocarcinoma and for cancers located in the head of the pancreas are notable and should be studied further.

“Over the past few decades, research studies have helped improve cancer treatment by uncovering risk factors and identifying the most affected (or protected) population,” he said. “Therefore, epidemiologic studies are crucial, especially for hard-to-treat cancers such as pancreatic cancer.”

The study was supported in part by a philanthropic grant from The Widjaja Family Fund for Pancreatic Cancer Research. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Issa reported no relevant disclosures.

The age-adjusted incidence rate of pancreatic cancer is increasing in young women in the United States, and it doesn’t show signs of slowing down, according to a new study published in Gastroenterology.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Between 2001 and 2018, there was a greater than 200% difference in the incidence trend between men and women for ages 15-34, wrote Yazan Abboud, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the pancreaticobiliary department of the Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

“The exact cause of the trend among younger women is unclear and may be driven by sex-based disproportional exposure or response to known or yet-to-be-explored risk factors,” they wrote. “Future efforts should aim to elucidate the causes of such a trend with the goal to formulate possible preventive measures.”

Although previous studies have found increasing pancreatic cancer incidence rates, especially in younger women, the data haven’t been externally validated outside of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, they wrote. In addition, there are limited data about the contributing factors, such as race, histopathological subtype, tumor location, and stage at diagnosis.

Using SEER-excluded data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), Dr. Abboud and colleagues conducted a population-based time-trend analysis of pancreatic cancer incidence rates from 2001 to 2018 in younger adults under age 55, including the role of demographics and tumor characteristics. They analyzed age-adjusted incidence rates (aIR), mortality rates, annual percentage change (APC), and average annual percentage change (AAPC) for ages 55 and older and ages 55 and younger. In addition, the research team evaluated the impact of incidence trends on sex-specific mortality trends in younger adults using the CDC’s National Center of Health Statistics database.

Between 2001 and 2018, 748,132 patients were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. After excluding SEER data, 454,611 patients met the inclusion criteria. About 48.9% were women.

The overall aIR of pancreatic cancer during that time was 12.18 per 100,000 people. Women had a significantly lower aIR, at 10.69 per 100,000, compared with men at 13.95 per 100,000.

In general, pancreatic cancer aIR significantly increased during that time (AAPC = 1.17%). Sex-specific trends increased among both women (AAPC = 1.27%) and men (AAPC = 1.14%), though they showed no significant difference and were parallel.

In ages 55 and older, 401,419 patients (49.7% women) were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The aIR significantly increased during the study period (AAPC = 1.11%), with sex-specific aIR increasing in both women (AAPC = 1.11%) and men (AAPC = 1.17%), without a significant difference.

However, a difference appeared in the 53,051 patients (42.9% women) who were ages 55 and younger. The aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.29%), with faster jumps in women (AAPC = 2.36%), compared with men (AAPC = .62%). There was an absolute significant difference of 1.74%.

The trends continued in breakdowns by age. For 50,599 patients (42.2% women) between ages 35 and 54, the aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.10%). Sex-specific aIR increased among women (AAPC = 2.09%) but remained stable among men (AAPC = 0.54%), with an absolute significant difference of 1.55%.

In the youngest cohort of 2,452 patients (57.3% women) between ages 15 and 34, aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 4.93). Sex-specific aIR also increased in both women (AAPC = 6.45%) and men (AAPC = 2.97%), with an absolute significant difference of 3.48%.

By race, although White women under age 55 experienced increasing aIR at a greater rate than men (AAPC difference = 1.59%), an even more dramatic increase was seen in Black women, as compared to counterpart men (AAPC difference = 2.23%). Sex-specific trends in people of other races were parallel.

Based on tumor characteristics in ages 55 and younger, the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma histopathological subtype had an AAPC difference of 0.89%, and a tumor location in the head-of-pancreas had an AAPC difference of 1.64%.

When evaluating tumors based on stage-at-diagnosis, the AAPC difference was nonsignificant in all subgroups. However, sex-specific trends differed in tumors diagnosed at localized stages, suggesting that aIR in women may be increasing at a greater rate than in men (AAPC difference = 1.64%).

Among 64,239 patients (39.3% women) who died from pancreatic cancer under age 55, the mortality rates were unchanged in women (AAPC = –0.09%) but declined in men (AAPC = –0.64%), with an absolute significant AAPC difference of 0.54%.

UCLA

“Pancreatic cancer has a very poor overall survival, accounting for 7% of cancer-related deaths. The incidence of cancers, in general, is expected to rise as life expectancy increases in the United States,” said Danny Issa, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved with this study.

“Recently, noncomparative studies showed a possible increase in the incidence of pancreatic cancer in younger White women and in older White men and women. These reports had limitations,” he said. “The findings of this study are monumental as they confirmed that age-adjusted incidence rates have been increasing at a higher rate in younger women compared to younger men.”

In addition, Dr. Issa said, the significant increases among Black women for adenocarcinoma and for cancers located in the head of the pancreas are notable and should be studied further.

“Over the past few decades, research studies have helped improve cancer treatment by uncovering risk factors and identifying the most affected (or protected) population,” he said. “Therefore, epidemiologic studies are crucial, especially for hard-to-treat cancers such as pancreatic cancer.”

The study was supported in part by a philanthropic grant from The Widjaja Family Fund for Pancreatic Cancer Research. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Issa reported no relevant disclosures.

The age-adjusted incidence rate of pancreatic cancer is increasing in young women in the United States, and it doesn’t show signs of slowing down, according to a new study published in Gastroenterology.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Between 2001 and 2018, there was a greater than 200% difference in the incidence trend between men and women for ages 15-34, wrote Yazan Abboud, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the pancreaticobiliary department of the Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

“The exact cause of the trend among younger women is unclear and may be driven by sex-based disproportional exposure or response to known or yet-to-be-explored risk factors,” they wrote. “Future efforts should aim to elucidate the causes of such a trend with the goal to formulate possible preventive measures.”

Although previous studies have found increasing pancreatic cancer incidence rates, especially in younger women, the data haven’t been externally validated outside of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, they wrote. In addition, there are limited data about the contributing factors, such as race, histopathological subtype, tumor location, and stage at diagnosis.

Using SEER-excluded data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), Dr. Abboud and colleagues conducted a population-based time-trend analysis of pancreatic cancer incidence rates from 2001 to 2018 in younger adults under age 55, including the role of demographics and tumor characteristics. They analyzed age-adjusted incidence rates (aIR), mortality rates, annual percentage change (APC), and average annual percentage change (AAPC) for ages 55 and older and ages 55 and younger. In addition, the research team evaluated the impact of incidence trends on sex-specific mortality trends in younger adults using the CDC’s National Center of Health Statistics database.

Between 2001 and 2018, 748,132 patients were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. After excluding SEER data, 454,611 patients met the inclusion criteria. About 48.9% were women.

The overall aIR of pancreatic cancer during that time was 12.18 per 100,000 people. Women had a significantly lower aIR, at 10.69 per 100,000, compared with men at 13.95 per 100,000.

In general, pancreatic cancer aIR significantly increased during that time (AAPC = 1.17%). Sex-specific trends increased among both women (AAPC = 1.27%) and men (AAPC = 1.14%), though they showed no significant difference and were parallel.

In ages 55 and older, 401,419 patients (49.7% women) were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The aIR significantly increased during the study period (AAPC = 1.11%), with sex-specific aIR increasing in both women (AAPC = 1.11%) and men (AAPC = 1.17%), without a significant difference.

However, a difference appeared in the 53,051 patients (42.9% women) who were ages 55 and younger. The aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.29%), with faster jumps in women (AAPC = 2.36%), compared with men (AAPC = .62%). There was an absolute significant difference of 1.74%.

The trends continued in breakdowns by age. For 50,599 patients (42.2% women) between ages 35 and 54, the aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 1.10%). Sex-specific aIR increased among women (AAPC = 2.09%) but remained stable among men (AAPC = 0.54%), with an absolute significant difference of 1.55%.

In the youngest cohort of 2,452 patients (57.3% women) between ages 15 and 34, aIR relatively increased (AAPC = 4.93). Sex-specific aIR also increased in both women (AAPC = 6.45%) and men (AAPC = 2.97%), with an absolute significant difference of 3.48%.

By race, although White women under age 55 experienced increasing aIR at a greater rate than men (AAPC difference = 1.59%), an even more dramatic increase was seen in Black women, as compared to counterpart men (AAPC difference = 2.23%). Sex-specific trends in people of other races were parallel.

Based on tumor characteristics in ages 55 and younger, the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma histopathological subtype had an AAPC difference of 0.89%, and a tumor location in the head-of-pancreas had an AAPC difference of 1.64%.

When evaluating tumors based on stage-at-diagnosis, the AAPC difference was nonsignificant in all subgroups. However, sex-specific trends differed in tumors diagnosed at localized stages, suggesting that aIR in women may be increasing at a greater rate than in men (AAPC difference = 1.64%).

Among 64,239 patients (39.3% women) who died from pancreatic cancer under age 55, the mortality rates were unchanged in women (AAPC = –0.09%) but declined in men (AAPC = –0.64%), with an absolute significant AAPC difference of 0.54%.

UCLA

“Pancreatic cancer has a very poor overall survival, accounting for 7% of cancer-related deaths. The incidence of cancers, in general, is expected to rise as life expectancy increases in the United States,” said Danny Issa, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved with this study.

“Recently, noncomparative studies showed a possible increase in the incidence of pancreatic cancer in younger White women and in older White men and women. These reports had limitations,” he said. “The findings of this study are monumental as they confirmed that age-adjusted incidence rates have been increasing at a higher rate in younger women compared to younger men.”

In addition, Dr. Issa said, the significant increases among Black women for adenocarcinoma and for cancers located in the head of the pancreas are notable and should be studied further.

“Over the past few decades, research studies have helped improve cancer treatment by uncovering risk factors and identifying the most affected (or protected) population,” he said. “Therefore, epidemiologic studies are crucial, especially for hard-to-treat cancers such as pancreatic cancer.”

The study was supported in part by a philanthropic grant from The Widjaja Family Fund for Pancreatic Cancer Research. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Issa reported no relevant disclosures.

In January 2023, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published updated recommendations on the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).¹ The ACP guidelines address initial treatment of patients in the acute phase of mild and moderate-to-severe MDD. Here’s what the ACP recommends, as well as 6 important takeaways.

Recommendations for initial treatment of those with mild or moderate-to-severe MDD center around cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and second-generation antidepressants (SGA). For patients in the acute phase of mild MDD, the recommendation is for monotherapy with CBT. However, if CBT is not an option due to cost and/or availability of services, the use of an SGA is acceptable.

For patients in the acute phase of moderate-to-severe MDD, either CBT, an SGA, or a combination of both is recommended.

If initial treatment does not work … Up to 70% of patients with moderate-to-severe MDD will not respond to the initial therapy chosen. If a patient does not respond to initial treatment with an SGA, consider 1 of the following:

• Switching to CBT
• Adding on CBT while continuing the SGA
• Changing to a different SGA
• Adding a second pharmacologic agent.

6 key takeaways. The full guideline should be read for a more complete discussion of the many clinical considerations of these treatment options. However, the most important points include:

• Employ shared clinical decision-making and consider the individual characteristics of each patient when making treatment decisions.

• Consider generic options when using an SGA; generic options appear to be as effective as more expensive brand-name products.

• Start with a low-dose SGA and increase gradually to an approved maximum dose before determining there has been no response.

• Monitor frequently for medication adverse effects.

• Monitor the patient for thoughts about self-harm for the first 2 months.

• Continue treatment for 4 to 9 months once remission is achieved.

A word about strength of evidence. While these recommendations are based on an extensive review of the best available evidence, most are based on low-certainty evidence—illustrating the amount of clinical research still needed on this topic. The exceptions are monotherapy with either CBT or SGA for initial treatment of moderate-to-severe MDD, both of which are based on moderate-strength evidence and received a strong recommendation. The panel felt there was insufficient evidence to assess complementary and alternative interventions including exercise and omega-3 fatty acids.

In January 2023, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published updated recommendations on the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).¹ The ACP guidelines address initial treatment of patients in the acute phase of mild and moderate-to-severe MDD. Here’s what the ACP recommends, as well as 6 important takeaways.

Recommendations for initial treatment of those with mild or moderate-to-severe MDD center around cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and second-generation antidepressants (SGA). For patients in the acute phase of mild MDD, the recommendation is for monotherapy with CBT. However, if CBT is not an option due to cost and/or availability of services, the use of an SGA is acceptable.

For patients in the acute phase of moderate-to-severe MDD, either CBT, an SGA, or a combination of both is recommended.

If initial treatment does not work … Up to 70% of patients with moderate-to-severe MDD will not respond to the initial therapy chosen. If a patient does not respond to initial treatment with an SGA, consider 1 of the following:

• Switching to CBT
• Adding on CBT while continuing the SGA
• Changing to a different SGA
• Adding a second pharmacologic agent.

6 key takeaways. The full guideline should be read for a more complete discussion of the many clinical considerations of these treatment options. However, the most important points include:

• Employ shared clinical decision-making and consider the individual characteristics of each patient when making treatment decisions.

• Consider generic options when using an SGA; generic options appear to be as effective as more expensive brand-name products.

• Start with a low-dose SGA and increase gradually to an approved maximum dose before determining there has been no response.

• Monitor frequently for medication adverse effects.

• Monitor the patient for thoughts about self-harm for the first 2 months.

• Continue treatment for 4 to 9 months once remission is achieved.

A word about strength of evidence. While these recommendations are based on an extensive review of the best available evidence, most are based on low-certainty evidence—illustrating the amount of clinical research still needed on this topic. The exceptions are monotherapy with either CBT or SGA for initial treatment of moderate-to-severe MDD, both of which are based on moderate-strength evidence and received a strong recommendation. The panel felt there was insufficient evidence to assess complementary and alternative interventions including exercise and omega-3 fatty acids.

In January 2023, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published updated recommendations on the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).¹ The ACP guidelines address initial treatment of patients in the acute phase of mild and moderate-to-severe MDD. Here’s what the ACP recommends, as well as 6 important takeaways.

Recommendations for initial treatment of those with mild or moderate-to-severe MDD center around cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and second-generation antidepressants (SGA). For patients in the acute phase of mild MDD, the recommendation is for monotherapy with CBT. However, if CBT is not an option due to cost and/or availability of services, the use of an SGA is acceptable.

For patients in the acute phase of moderate-to-severe MDD, either CBT, an SGA, or a combination of both is recommended.

If initial treatment does not work … Up to 70% of patients with moderate-to-severe MDD will not respond to the initial therapy chosen. If a patient does not respond to initial treatment with an SGA, consider 1 of the following:

• Switching to CBT
• Adding on CBT while continuing the SGA
• Changing to a different SGA
• Adding a second pharmacologic agent.

6 key takeaways. The full guideline should be read for a more complete discussion of the many clinical considerations of these treatment options. However, the most important points include:

• Employ shared clinical decision-making and consider the individual characteristics of each patient when making treatment decisions.

• Consider generic options when using an SGA; generic options appear to be as effective as more expensive brand-name products.

• Start with a low-dose SGA and increase gradually to an approved maximum dose before determining there has been no response.

• Monitor frequently for medication adverse effects.

• Monitor the patient for thoughts about self-harm for the first 2 months.

• Continue treatment for 4 to 9 months once remission is achieved.

A word about strength of evidence. While these recommendations are based on an extensive review of the best available evidence, most are based on low-certainty evidence—illustrating the amount of clinical research still needed on this topic. The exceptions are monotherapy with either CBT or SGA for initial treatment of moderate-to-severe MDD, both of which are based on moderate-strength evidence and received a strong recommendation. The panel felt there was insufficient evidence to assess complementary and alternative interventions including exercise and omega-3 fatty acids.