User login
Dabigatran recalled over potential carcinogen
The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.
To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.
The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.
Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.
The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.
Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.
Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).
Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.
To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.
The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.
Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.
The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.
Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.
Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).
Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.
To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.
The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.
Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.
The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.
Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.
Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).
Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Link between knee pain, sleep disturbance related to daily activities
DENVER – The relationship between nighttime knee pain from osteoarthritis and sleep disturbances is more complex than a simple association, according to new research presented at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International 2023 World Congress.
The findings suggested that the association between knee OA pain and sleep problems was also linked to activities of daily living, which can contribute to pain but are also affected by OA, Takahiro Sasahara, of the department of orthopedics at Juntendo University, Tokyo, and Koshigaya Municipal Hospital, Saitama, Japan, told attendees. The study also found that knee pain and mobility impairment were associated with sleep disturbances in older adults regardless of the severity of knee OA.
Luisa Cedin, a PhD student at Rush University, Chicago, who attended the presentation, noted the clinical implications of the interaction of daily activities with knee pain.
”I’m a physical therapist, and this could have a significant impact on the performance of the exercises that I’m requiring as a physical therapist,” Ms. Cedin said in an interview. “When you ask somebody who is not getting enough rest during the night – not only enough time but enough quality of rest – we know that we can expect a lower performance with any type of exercises, whether it’s less strength or force, less power, less agility, or less resistance or endurance, so this has a big impact on their quality of life.”
Mr. Sasahara cited research noting that acute pain occurs at the beginning of movement and during weight bearing and walking while chronic pain frequently occurs at night and in early morning awakenings. The prevalence of sleep disturbances in patients with chronic pain ranges from 50% to 80%, he said, and past evidence has shown the relationship between sleep and pain to be bidirectional.
For example, insomnia frequency and severity, sleep-onset problems, and sleep efficiency are all positively associated with pain sensitivity, and increasing severity of OA is linked to increasing prevalence of night knee pain and sleep problems, affecting quality of life, he said.
In this new study examining the relationship between sleep disturbance and knee pain and mobility, the researchers focused specifically on a population of older adults with knee OA. They analyzed data from the Bunkyo Health Study, which was conducted at Juntendo University’s Sportology Center to examine the association between metabolic, cardiovascular, cognitive dysfunction, and motor organ disorders in older adults from November 2015 to September 2018.
From the initial population of 1,630 adults, aged 65-84, who did not need medical treatment because of knee pain, the researchers analyzed data from 1,145 adults who the met this study’s criteria, which included MRI imaging of medial type knee OA. A little over half (55.7%) were women, with an average age of 73 and an average body mass index (BMI) of 22.8 kg/m2.
In addition to blood and urine sampling, the researchers determined the severity of knee OA based on joint space width, femorotibial angle, and Kellgren and Lawrence (K/L) grade from x-rays in standing position. They also assessed the structure of knee OA using a whole-organ MRI score (WORMS), and pain and mobility with a visual analog scale, the Japan Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM), and the 25-question geriatric locomotive function scale.
The JKOM, based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities quality of life index for general knee OA, is adjusted to account for the Japanese lifestyle and covers four categories: knee pain and stiffness, a score for activities of daily living, a social activities score, and the patient’s health conditions.
Overall, 41.3% of the participants had sleep disturbances, based on a score of 6 or higher on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index–Japanese. More women (55.7%) than men experienced sleep problems (P < .001), but there were no significant differences in the average age between those who did and those who did not have sleep issues. There were also no significance differences in BMI, joint space width, or femorotibial angle, which was an average 177.5 degrees in group with no sleep problems and 177.6 degrees in the group with sleep disturbances.
The proportion of participants experiencing sleep disturbances increased with increasing K/L grade of OA: 56.8% of those with K/L grade 4 had sleep problems, compared with 40.9% of those with K/L grade 3, 42.1% of those with K/L grade 2, and 33.7% of those with K/L grade 1, resulting in 30% greater odds of sleep disturbance with a higher K/L grade (odds ratio, 1.3; P = .011).
Knee pain at night was also significantly associated with severity of OA based on the K/L grade. While only 6.9% of participants reported pain at night overall, nearly 1 in 3 (29.5%) of those with K/L grade 4 reported pain at night, compared with 3.4% of those with K/L grade 1 (P < .001). (Night pain occurred in 5.4% of those with K/L grade 2 and 16.1% with K/L grade 3.)
However, after adjusting for age, gender, and BMI, the severity of knee OA was not significantly associated with sleep disturbance based on K/L grade, joint space width, femoro-tibial angle, and/or WORMS. But knee pain remained significantly associated with sleep disturbance after adjustment based on the visual analog scale and the JKOM (P < .001 for both).
Sleep problems were also significantly associated with each subcategory of the JKOM after adjustment (P < .001 for all but social activities, which was P = .014).
“Activities of daily living may affect the occurrence of knee pain at night,” Mr. Sasahara said, and “sleep disturbance may also disturb quality of life.” If sleep disturbances related to nighttime knee pain are linked to activities of daily living, then “not only knee pain but also activities of daily living need to be improved in order to improve sleep.”
He noted several of the study’s limitations, including the fact that lifestyle habits and work were not taken into account, nor did the researchers evaluate sleep disturbances potentially resulting from a medical illness. The researchers also only examined knee pain, not pain in other parts of the body.
The research was funded by Juntendo University; the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities; KAKENHI from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Mizuno Sports Promotion Foundation; and the Mitsui Life Social Welfare Foundation. Mr. Sasahara and Ms. Cedin had no disclosures.
DENVER – The relationship between nighttime knee pain from osteoarthritis and sleep disturbances is more complex than a simple association, according to new research presented at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International 2023 World Congress.
The findings suggested that the association between knee OA pain and sleep problems was also linked to activities of daily living, which can contribute to pain but are also affected by OA, Takahiro Sasahara, of the department of orthopedics at Juntendo University, Tokyo, and Koshigaya Municipal Hospital, Saitama, Japan, told attendees. The study also found that knee pain and mobility impairment were associated with sleep disturbances in older adults regardless of the severity of knee OA.
Luisa Cedin, a PhD student at Rush University, Chicago, who attended the presentation, noted the clinical implications of the interaction of daily activities with knee pain.
”I’m a physical therapist, and this could have a significant impact on the performance of the exercises that I’m requiring as a physical therapist,” Ms. Cedin said in an interview. “When you ask somebody who is not getting enough rest during the night – not only enough time but enough quality of rest – we know that we can expect a lower performance with any type of exercises, whether it’s less strength or force, less power, less agility, or less resistance or endurance, so this has a big impact on their quality of life.”
Mr. Sasahara cited research noting that acute pain occurs at the beginning of movement and during weight bearing and walking while chronic pain frequently occurs at night and in early morning awakenings. The prevalence of sleep disturbances in patients with chronic pain ranges from 50% to 80%, he said, and past evidence has shown the relationship between sleep and pain to be bidirectional.
For example, insomnia frequency and severity, sleep-onset problems, and sleep efficiency are all positively associated with pain sensitivity, and increasing severity of OA is linked to increasing prevalence of night knee pain and sleep problems, affecting quality of life, he said.
In this new study examining the relationship between sleep disturbance and knee pain and mobility, the researchers focused specifically on a population of older adults with knee OA. They analyzed data from the Bunkyo Health Study, which was conducted at Juntendo University’s Sportology Center to examine the association between metabolic, cardiovascular, cognitive dysfunction, and motor organ disorders in older adults from November 2015 to September 2018.
From the initial population of 1,630 adults, aged 65-84, who did not need medical treatment because of knee pain, the researchers analyzed data from 1,145 adults who the met this study’s criteria, which included MRI imaging of medial type knee OA. A little over half (55.7%) were women, with an average age of 73 and an average body mass index (BMI) of 22.8 kg/m2.
In addition to blood and urine sampling, the researchers determined the severity of knee OA based on joint space width, femorotibial angle, and Kellgren and Lawrence (K/L) grade from x-rays in standing position. They also assessed the structure of knee OA using a whole-organ MRI score (WORMS), and pain and mobility with a visual analog scale, the Japan Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM), and the 25-question geriatric locomotive function scale.
The JKOM, based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities quality of life index for general knee OA, is adjusted to account for the Japanese lifestyle and covers four categories: knee pain and stiffness, a score for activities of daily living, a social activities score, and the patient’s health conditions.
Overall, 41.3% of the participants had sleep disturbances, based on a score of 6 or higher on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index–Japanese. More women (55.7%) than men experienced sleep problems (P < .001), but there were no significant differences in the average age between those who did and those who did not have sleep issues. There were also no significance differences in BMI, joint space width, or femorotibial angle, which was an average 177.5 degrees in group with no sleep problems and 177.6 degrees in the group with sleep disturbances.
The proportion of participants experiencing sleep disturbances increased with increasing K/L grade of OA: 56.8% of those with K/L grade 4 had sleep problems, compared with 40.9% of those with K/L grade 3, 42.1% of those with K/L grade 2, and 33.7% of those with K/L grade 1, resulting in 30% greater odds of sleep disturbance with a higher K/L grade (odds ratio, 1.3; P = .011).
Knee pain at night was also significantly associated with severity of OA based on the K/L grade. While only 6.9% of participants reported pain at night overall, nearly 1 in 3 (29.5%) of those with K/L grade 4 reported pain at night, compared with 3.4% of those with K/L grade 1 (P < .001). (Night pain occurred in 5.4% of those with K/L grade 2 and 16.1% with K/L grade 3.)
However, after adjusting for age, gender, and BMI, the severity of knee OA was not significantly associated with sleep disturbance based on K/L grade, joint space width, femoro-tibial angle, and/or WORMS. But knee pain remained significantly associated with sleep disturbance after adjustment based on the visual analog scale and the JKOM (P < .001 for both).
Sleep problems were also significantly associated with each subcategory of the JKOM after adjustment (P < .001 for all but social activities, which was P = .014).
“Activities of daily living may affect the occurrence of knee pain at night,” Mr. Sasahara said, and “sleep disturbance may also disturb quality of life.” If sleep disturbances related to nighttime knee pain are linked to activities of daily living, then “not only knee pain but also activities of daily living need to be improved in order to improve sleep.”
He noted several of the study’s limitations, including the fact that lifestyle habits and work were not taken into account, nor did the researchers evaluate sleep disturbances potentially resulting from a medical illness. The researchers also only examined knee pain, not pain in other parts of the body.
The research was funded by Juntendo University; the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities; KAKENHI from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Mizuno Sports Promotion Foundation; and the Mitsui Life Social Welfare Foundation. Mr. Sasahara and Ms. Cedin had no disclosures.
DENVER – The relationship between nighttime knee pain from osteoarthritis and sleep disturbances is more complex than a simple association, according to new research presented at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International 2023 World Congress.
The findings suggested that the association between knee OA pain and sleep problems was also linked to activities of daily living, which can contribute to pain but are also affected by OA, Takahiro Sasahara, of the department of orthopedics at Juntendo University, Tokyo, and Koshigaya Municipal Hospital, Saitama, Japan, told attendees. The study also found that knee pain and mobility impairment were associated with sleep disturbances in older adults regardless of the severity of knee OA.
Luisa Cedin, a PhD student at Rush University, Chicago, who attended the presentation, noted the clinical implications of the interaction of daily activities with knee pain.
”I’m a physical therapist, and this could have a significant impact on the performance of the exercises that I’m requiring as a physical therapist,” Ms. Cedin said in an interview. “When you ask somebody who is not getting enough rest during the night – not only enough time but enough quality of rest – we know that we can expect a lower performance with any type of exercises, whether it’s less strength or force, less power, less agility, or less resistance or endurance, so this has a big impact on their quality of life.”
Mr. Sasahara cited research noting that acute pain occurs at the beginning of movement and during weight bearing and walking while chronic pain frequently occurs at night and in early morning awakenings. The prevalence of sleep disturbances in patients with chronic pain ranges from 50% to 80%, he said, and past evidence has shown the relationship between sleep and pain to be bidirectional.
For example, insomnia frequency and severity, sleep-onset problems, and sleep efficiency are all positively associated with pain sensitivity, and increasing severity of OA is linked to increasing prevalence of night knee pain and sleep problems, affecting quality of life, he said.
In this new study examining the relationship between sleep disturbance and knee pain and mobility, the researchers focused specifically on a population of older adults with knee OA. They analyzed data from the Bunkyo Health Study, which was conducted at Juntendo University’s Sportology Center to examine the association between metabolic, cardiovascular, cognitive dysfunction, and motor organ disorders in older adults from November 2015 to September 2018.
From the initial population of 1,630 adults, aged 65-84, who did not need medical treatment because of knee pain, the researchers analyzed data from 1,145 adults who the met this study’s criteria, which included MRI imaging of medial type knee OA. A little over half (55.7%) were women, with an average age of 73 and an average body mass index (BMI) of 22.8 kg/m2.
In addition to blood and urine sampling, the researchers determined the severity of knee OA based on joint space width, femorotibial angle, and Kellgren and Lawrence (K/L) grade from x-rays in standing position. They also assessed the structure of knee OA using a whole-organ MRI score (WORMS), and pain and mobility with a visual analog scale, the Japan Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM), and the 25-question geriatric locomotive function scale.
The JKOM, based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities quality of life index for general knee OA, is adjusted to account for the Japanese lifestyle and covers four categories: knee pain and stiffness, a score for activities of daily living, a social activities score, and the patient’s health conditions.
Overall, 41.3% of the participants had sleep disturbances, based on a score of 6 or higher on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index–Japanese. More women (55.7%) than men experienced sleep problems (P < .001), but there were no significant differences in the average age between those who did and those who did not have sleep issues. There were also no significance differences in BMI, joint space width, or femorotibial angle, which was an average 177.5 degrees in group with no sleep problems and 177.6 degrees in the group with sleep disturbances.
The proportion of participants experiencing sleep disturbances increased with increasing K/L grade of OA: 56.8% of those with K/L grade 4 had sleep problems, compared with 40.9% of those with K/L grade 3, 42.1% of those with K/L grade 2, and 33.7% of those with K/L grade 1, resulting in 30% greater odds of sleep disturbance with a higher K/L grade (odds ratio, 1.3; P = .011).
Knee pain at night was also significantly associated with severity of OA based on the K/L grade. While only 6.9% of participants reported pain at night overall, nearly 1 in 3 (29.5%) of those with K/L grade 4 reported pain at night, compared with 3.4% of those with K/L grade 1 (P < .001). (Night pain occurred in 5.4% of those with K/L grade 2 and 16.1% with K/L grade 3.)
However, after adjusting for age, gender, and BMI, the severity of knee OA was not significantly associated with sleep disturbance based on K/L grade, joint space width, femoro-tibial angle, and/or WORMS. But knee pain remained significantly associated with sleep disturbance after adjustment based on the visual analog scale and the JKOM (P < .001 for both).
Sleep problems were also significantly associated with each subcategory of the JKOM after adjustment (P < .001 for all but social activities, which was P = .014).
“Activities of daily living may affect the occurrence of knee pain at night,” Mr. Sasahara said, and “sleep disturbance may also disturb quality of life.” If sleep disturbances related to nighttime knee pain are linked to activities of daily living, then “not only knee pain but also activities of daily living need to be improved in order to improve sleep.”
He noted several of the study’s limitations, including the fact that lifestyle habits and work were not taken into account, nor did the researchers evaluate sleep disturbances potentially resulting from a medical illness. The researchers also only examined knee pain, not pain in other parts of the body.
The research was funded by Juntendo University; the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities; KAKENHI from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Mizuno Sports Promotion Foundation; and the Mitsui Life Social Welfare Foundation. Mr. Sasahara and Ms. Cedin had no disclosures.
AT OARSI 2023
eNose knows S. aureus in children with cystic fibrosis
An electronic nose effectively detected Staphylococcus aureus in children with cystic fibrosis, based on data from 100 individuals.
Staphylococcus aureus is the most common pathogen found in children with cystic fibrosis (CF), but current detection strategies are based on microbiology cultures, wrote Johann-Christoph Licht, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
Noninvasive tools are needed to screen children with CF early for respiratory infections, the researchers said.
The electronic Nose (eNose) is a technology that detects volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Although exhaled breath can be used to create distinct profiles, the ability of eNose to identify S. aureus (SA) in the breath of children with CF remains unclear, they wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, the researchers analyzed breath profiles data from 100 children with CF. The study population included children aged 5-18 years with clinically stable CF who were recruited from CF clinics during routine visits. Patients with a CF pulmonary exacerbation were excluded.
The children’s median predicted FEV1 was 91%. The researchers collected sputum from 67 patients and throat cultures for 33 patients. A group of 25 age-matched healthy controls served for comparison.
Eighty patients were positive for CF pathogens. Of these, 67 were positive for SA (44 with SA only and 23 with SA and at least one other pathogen).
Overall, patients with any CF pathogen on airway cultures were identified compared to airway cultures with no CF pathogens with an area under the curve accuracy of 79.0%.
Previous studies have shown a high rate of accuracy using eNose to detect Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). In the current study, the area under the curve accuracy for PA infection compared to no CF pathogens was 78%. Both SA-specific and PA-specific signatures were driven by different sensors in the eNose, which suggests pathogen-specific breath signatures, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of patients with positive airway cultures for PA and the lack of data on variability of measures over time or treatment-induced changes, the researchers noted.
However, the results confirm the value of the eNose in real-time point-of-care detection of airway infection in children with CF, and this is the first study known to suggest the potential of an eNose to detect SA infection in particular in a routine clinical setting, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
Other points in favor of eNose compared to current practice include “low cost, ease of use and portability to the point-of-care,” they said. The eNose provides an opportunity for early detection of pathogens that challenges conventional microbiology testing, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Two coauthors disclosed fees and/or an interest in the company Breathomix BV.
An electronic nose effectively detected Staphylococcus aureus in children with cystic fibrosis, based on data from 100 individuals.
Staphylococcus aureus is the most common pathogen found in children with cystic fibrosis (CF), but current detection strategies are based on microbiology cultures, wrote Johann-Christoph Licht, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
Noninvasive tools are needed to screen children with CF early for respiratory infections, the researchers said.
The electronic Nose (eNose) is a technology that detects volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Although exhaled breath can be used to create distinct profiles, the ability of eNose to identify S. aureus (SA) in the breath of children with CF remains unclear, they wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, the researchers analyzed breath profiles data from 100 children with CF. The study population included children aged 5-18 years with clinically stable CF who were recruited from CF clinics during routine visits. Patients with a CF pulmonary exacerbation were excluded.
The children’s median predicted FEV1 was 91%. The researchers collected sputum from 67 patients and throat cultures for 33 patients. A group of 25 age-matched healthy controls served for comparison.
Eighty patients were positive for CF pathogens. Of these, 67 were positive for SA (44 with SA only and 23 with SA and at least one other pathogen).
Overall, patients with any CF pathogen on airway cultures were identified compared to airway cultures with no CF pathogens with an area under the curve accuracy of 79.0%.
Previous studies have shown a high rate of accuracy using eNose to detect Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). In the current study, the area under the curve accuracy for PA infection compared to no CF pathogens was 78%. Both SA-specific and PA-specific signatures were driven by different sensors in the eNose, which suggests pathogen-specific breath signatures, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of patients with positive airway cultures for PA and the lack of data on variability of measures over time or treatment-induced changes, the researchers noted.
However, the results confirm the value of the eNose in real-time point-of-care detection of airway infection in children with CF, and this is the first study known to suggest the potential of an eNose to detect SA infection in particular in a routine clinical setting, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
Other points in favor of eNose compared to current practice include “low cost, ease of use and portability to the point-of-care,” they said. The eNose provides an opportunity for early detection of pathogens that challenges conventional microbiology testing, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Two coauthors disclosed fees and/or an interest in the company Breathomix BV.
An electronic nose effectively detected Staphylococcus aureus in children with cystic fibrosis, based on data from 100 individuals.
Staphylococcus aureus is the most common pathogen found in children with cystic fibrosis (CF), but current detection strategies are based on microbiology cultures, wrote Johann-Christoph Licht, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
Noninvasive tools are needed to screen children with CF early for respiratory infections, the researchers said.
The electronic Nose (eNose) is a technology that detects volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Although exhaled breath can be used to create distinct profiles, the ability of eNose to identify S. aureus (SA) in the breath of children with CF remains unclear, they wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, the researchers analyzed breath profiles data from 100 children with CF. The study population included children aged 5-18 years with clinically stable CF who were recruited from CF clinics during routine visits. Patients with a CF pulmonary exacerbation were excluded.
The children’s median predicted FEV1 was 91%. The researchers collected sputum from 67 patients and throat cultures for 33 patients. A group of 25 age-matched healthy controls served for comparison.
Eighty patients were positive for CF pathogens. Of these, 67 were positive for SA (44 with SA only and 23 with SA and at least one other pathogen).
Overall, patients with any CF pathogen on airway cultures were identified compared to airway cultures with no CF pathogens with an area under the curve accuracy of 79.0%.
Previous studies have shown a high rate of accuracy using eNose to detect Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). In the current study, the area under the curve accuracy for PA infection compared to no CF pathogens was 78%. Both SA-specific and PA-specific signatures were driven by different sensors in the eNose, which suggests pathogen-specific breath signatures, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of patients with positive airway cultures for PA and the lack of data on variability of measures over time or treatment-induced changes, the researchers noted.
However, the results confirm the value of the eNose in real-time point-of-care detection of airway infection in children with CF, and this is the first study known to suggest the potential of an eNose to detect SA infection in particular in a routine clinical setting, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
Other points in favor of eNose compared to current practice include “low cost, ease of use and portability to the point-of-care,” they said. The eNose provides an opportunity for early detection of pathogens that challenges conventional microbiology testing, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Two coauthors disclosed fees and/or an interest in the company Breathomix BV.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CYSTIC FIBROSIS
Financial navigators saved about $2,500 per cancer patient
Cancer patients in the United States face complex financial issues in navigating with medical insurance companies to cover their care. This “financial toxicity” has come to be regarded as a side effect of cancer treatment.
Patients with hematologic malignancies may be particularly vulnerable to financial toxicity, owing to the nature of their treatment, which often includes bone marrow transplantation, lengthy hospital stays, and prolonged intensive follow-up, as well as potential treatment-related complications, such as graft vs. host disease.
The results from this small study suggest that using an oncology financial navigator could be helpful. But not all cancer patients have access to such a person, explained lead author Jean S. Edward, PhD, RN, associate professor in the college of nursing at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.
“Unfortunately, it’s not as common as we would like, especially in underserved areas with patient and caregiver populations that need it the most,” she said. Dr. Edward is hopeful that the results from this study, even though it is small, might help to boost use of this intervention. “OFN [oncology financial navigation] is not necessarily a cutting-edge program or ‘novel’ intervention, but the lack of programs and limitations in implementing in cancer centers does make it a gap in practice,” Dr. Edward told this news organization.
“There are gaps in evidence on how to incorporate an oncology financial navigator in current workflows and sustainability of positions, but as our study has shown, the return on investment to the health care system and/or financial benefits to patients/caregivers could help cover the cost of implementing such programs,” she said.
The study was published in JCO Oncology Practice.
The intervention used in this study, Coverage and Cost-of-Care Links (CC Links), was designed specifically to address financial toxicity among patients with hematologic cancers.
The study’s primary outcomes were defined as improvements in financial distress as well as in physical and mental quality of life.
A total of 54 patients and 32 caregivers completed the intervention and pre-/postintervention surveys. More than half of participants were women. The average age was 63 years. Less than a quarter of the patients were employed (23%), about one-third had income that was below the federal poverty level, and almost all had insurance. About 59% of the caregivers were employed.
The navigators’ functions included screening for financial toxicity using FACIT-Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Distress Thermometer and Problem List. They also helped patients to estimate cost of care, assessed health insurance coverage, and connected patients/caregivers with disease-specific resources and other external assistance programs, among other things.
Participants had an average of three in-person meetings and five telephone interactions with the financial navigator. The most common concern was in regard to high out-of-pocket costs. The most frequently provided services from the navigator were helping with financial assistance programs and grant applications. Overall, the navigator was able to obtain $124,600 in financial benefits for 48 participants, as well as money for travel ($24,000), urgent needs ($16,000), patient financial assistance ($9,100), and copay assistance grants ($75,500).
With regard to scores on the screening tools, the only significant change from pre- to postintervention was in the psychological response score, or COST. It decreased by an average of 2.30 points (P = .019; Hedges’ g = 0.33). For caregivers, there was a significant improvement in COST (average decrease, 2.97 points; P = .021; g = 0.43), material condition scores (average decrease, 0.63 points; P = .031; g = 0.39), and total financial toxicity scores (average decrease, 0.13 points; P = .041; g = 0.37).
Most of the participants gave the intervention high ratings for acceptability (89%) and appropriateness (88%).
“Standardized screening for financial toxicity in cancer care settings is essential to support early identification of financial needs that serve as barriers to care,” the authors conclude. “Close collaboration and coordination with existing services and workflows are essential for the seamless integration of OFN interventions within health systems and to help facilitate contact and communication with participants.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute; the University of Kentucky’s Markey Cancer Center; the Research Communications Office of the Patient Oriented and Population Science Shared Resource Facilities; Joan Scales, LCSW, and the Psych-Oncology Program at the University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center; and UK HealthCare’s Patient Financial Services. Dr. Edward has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer patients in the United States face complex financial issues in navigating with medical insurance companies to cover their care. This “financial toxicity” has come to be regarded as a side effect of cancer treatment.
Patients with hematologic malignancies may be particularly vulnerable to financial toxicity, owing to the nature of their treatment, which often includes bone marrow transplantation, lengthy hospital stays, and prolonged intensive follow-up, as well as potential treatment-related complications, such as graft vs. host disease.
The results from this small study suggest that using an oncology financial navigator could be helpful. But not all cancer patients have access to such a person, explained lead author Jean S. Edward, PhD, RN, associate professor in the college of nursing at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.
“Unfortunately, it’s not as common as we would like, especially in underserved areas with patient and caregiver populations that need it the most,” she said. Dr. Edward is hopeful that the results from this study, even though it is small, might help to boost use of this intervention. “OFN [oncology financial navigation] is not necessarily a cutting-edge program or ‘novel’ intervention, but the lack of programs and limitations in implementing in cancer centers does make it a gap in practice,” Dr. Edward told this news organization.
“There are gaps in evidence on how to incorporate an oncology financial navigator in current workflows and sustainability of positions, but as our study has shown, the return on investment to the health care system and/or financial benefits to patients/caregivers could help cover the cost of implementing such programs,” she said.
The study was published in JCO Oncology Practice.
The intervention used in this study, Coverage and Cost-of-Care Links (CC Links), was designed specifically to address financial toxicity among patients with hematologic cancers.
The study’s primary outcomes were defined as improvements in financial distress as well as in physical and mental quality of life.
A total of 54 patients and 32 caregivers completed the intervention and pre-/postintervention surveys. More than half of participants were women. The average age was 63 years. Less than a quarter of the patients were employed (23%), about one-third had income that was below the federal poverty level, and almost all had insurance. About 59% of the caregivers were employed.
The navigators’ functions included screening for financial toxicity using FACIT-Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Distress Thermometer and Problem List. They also helped patients to estimate cost of care, assessed health insurance coverage, and connected patients/caregivers with disease-specific resources and other external assistance programs, among other things.
Participants had an average of three in-person meetings and five telephone interactions with the financial navigator. The most common concern was in regard to high out-of-pocket costs. The most frequently provided services from the navigator were helping with financial assistance programs and grant applications. Overall, the navigator was able to obtain $124,600 in financial benefits for 48 participants, as well as money for travel ($24,000), urgent needs ($16,000), patient financial assistance ($9,100), and copay assistance grants ($75,500).
With regard to scores on the screening tools, the only significant change from pre- to postintervention was in the psychological response score, or COST. It decreased by an average of 2.30 points (P = .019; Hedges’ g = 0.33). For caregivers, there was a significant improvement in COST (average decrease, 2.97 points; P = .021; g = 0.43), material condition scores (average decrease, 0.63 points; P = .031; g = 0.39), and total financial toxicity scores (average decrease, 0.13 points; P = .041; g = 0.37).
Most of the participants gave the intervention high ratings for acceptability (89%) and appropriateness (88%).
“Standardized screening for financial toxicity in cancer care settings is essential to support early identification of financial needs that serve as barriers to care,” the authors conclude. “Close collaboration and coordination with existing services and workflows are essential for the seamless integration of OFN interventions within health systems and to help facilitate contact and communication with participants.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute; the University of Kentucky’s Markey Cancer Center; the Research Communications Office of the Patient Oriented and Population Science Shared Resource Facilities; Joan Scales, LCSW, and the Psych-Oncology Program at the University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center; and UK HealthCare’s Patient Financial Services. Dr. Edward has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer patients in the United States face complex financial issues in navigating with medical insurance companies to cover their care. This “financial toxicity” has come to be regarded as a side effect of cancer treatment.
Patients with hematologic malignancies may be particularly vulnerable to financial toxicity, owing to the nature of their treatment, which often includes bone marrow transplantation, lengthy hospital stays, and prolonged intensive follow-up, as well as potential treatment-related complications, such as graft vs. host disease.
The results from this small study suggest that using an oncology financial navigator could be helpful. But not all cancer patients have access to such a person, explained lead author Jean S. Edward, PhD, RN, associate professor in the college of nursing at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.
“Unfortunately, it’s not as common as we would like, especially in underserved areas with patient and caregiver populations that need it the most,” she said. Dr. Edward is hopeful that the results from this study, even though it is small, might help to boost use of this intervention. “OFN [oncology financial navigation] is not necessarily a cutting-edge program or ‘novel’ intervention, but the lack of programs and limitations in implementing in cancer centers does make it a gap in practice,” Dr. Edward told this news organization.
“There are gaps in evidence on how to incorporate an oncology financial navigator in current workflows and sustainability of positions, but as our study has shown, the return on investment to the health care system and/or financial benefits to patients/caregivers could help cover the cost of implementing such programs,” she said.
The study was published in JCO Oncology Practice.
The intervention used in this study, Coverage and Cost-of-Care Links (CC Links), was designed specifically to address financial toxicity among patients with hematologic cancers.
The study’s primary outcomes were defined as improvements in financial distress as well as in physical and mental quality of life.
A total of 54 patients and 32 caregivers completed the intervention and pre-/postintervention surveys. More than half of participants were women. The average age was 63 years. Less than a quarter of the patients were employed (23%), about one-third had income that was below the federal poverty level, and almost all had insurance. About 59% of the caregivers were employed.
The navigators’ functions included screening for financial toxicity using FACIT-Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Distress Thermometer and Problem List. They also helped patients to estimate cost of care, assessed health insurance coverage, and connected patients/caregivers with disease-specific resources and other external assistance programs, among other things.
Participants had an average of three in-person meetings and five telephone interactions with the financial navigator. The most common concern was in regard to high out-of-pocket costs. The most frequently provided services from the navigator were helping with financial assistance programs and grant applications. Overall, the navigator was able to obtain $124,600 in financial benefits for 48 participants, as well as money for travel ($24,000), urgent needs ($16,000), patient financial assistance ($9,100), and copay assistance grants ($75,500).
With regard to scores on the screening tools, the only significant change from pre- to postintervention was in the psychological response score, or COST. It decreased by an average of 2.30 points (P = .019; Hedges’ g = 0.33). For caregivers, there was a significant improvement in COST (average decrease, 2.97 points; P = .021; g = 0.43), material condition scores (average decrease, 0.63 points; P = .031; g = 0.39), and total financial toxicity scores (average decrease, 0.13 points; P = .041; g = 0.37).
Most of the participants gave the intervention high ratings for acceptability (89%) and appropriateness (88%).
“Standardized screening for financial toxicity in cancer care settings is essential to support early identification of financial needs that serve as barriers to care,” the authors conclude. “Close collaboration and coordination with existing services and workflows are essential for the seamless integration of OFN interventions within health systems and to help facilitate contact and communication with participants.”
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute; the University of Kentucky’s Markey Cancer Center; the Research Communications Office of the Patient Oriented and Population Science Shared Resource Facilities; Joan Scales, LCSW, and the Psych-Oncology Program at the University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center; and UK HealthCare’s Patient Financial Services. Dr. Edward has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JCO ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
Home-based HPV cervical cancer screening ‘cost effective’
For women who are overdue for cervical cancer screening, mailing self-sampling kits for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is a cost-effective means of increasing screening uptake, reveals an analysis of a large U.S. trial.
The finding comes from a randomized trial in almost 20,000 women, which compared women who received a mailed HPV testing kit with those who did not. The results show that mailing was most cost-effective in women aged 50-64 years and in those who were only recently overdue for cervical screening.
The study was published by JAMA Network Open.
“These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates in U.S. health care systems,” say the authors, led by Rachel L. Winer, PhD, MPH, department of epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle.
They note that their results are consistent with those from previous studies in other health care contexts, but their analysis “benefited from the randomized clinical trial design and a large sample size,” they write.
However, they point out that the trial was conducted “before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and it is “well established” that cancer screening rates “decreased substantially during the pandemic.”
They suggest that mailed HPV self-sampling kits could nevertheless be a “means of overcoming screening barriers among underscreened women,” which may have been exacerbated by the “societal consequences of the pandemic.”
Reducing barriers to screening
Cervical screening is associated with “substantial global reductions” in the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer, the authors point out. Because most cases of the disease are consequently preventable, it now occurs “predominantly in individuals who have never or rarely received screening.”
Home-based HPV-only testing reduces the need for office visits and reduces barriers to screening, such as discomfort, embarrassment, and difficulties with scheduling or attending appointments.
Previous studies have shown that the direct mailing of home-based HPV self-collection kits is associated with increased uptake of screening among underscreened women and is cost-effective, although the researchers point out that these previous studies were conducted in countries with “organized national screening programs.”
For their own study, they focused on home-based HPV screening among underscreened individuals in the United States. The team examined data from the Home-based Options to Make cervical cancer screening Easy trial, which has previously showed that mailing kits to women increased screening uptake, compared with usual care alone.
For the current analysis, they conducted an economic evaluation of data on 19,851 trial participants, who were randomized to receive home-based screening or usual care between February 2014 and August 2016 and were followed up to February 2018.
All of the women were aged 30-64 years and had been enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPW) for at least 3 years and 5 months. They were also required not have undergone a hysterectomy.
Participant-level economic data were collected between June 2019 and March 2021, with intervention delivery costs calculated from the perspective of both the KPW and Medicare health systems and based on the cost of either a wellness visit or Papanicolaou (Pap) test–only visit.
The mean age of the participants was 50.1 years, and the majority (76.7%) were White; 9.7% were Asian and 4.7% were Black or African American.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the group assigned to usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc screening outreach, and those in the intervention group, who received usual care and a mailed HPV self-sampling kit.
The researchers report that 1,206 women in the intervention group sent back a mailed HPV kit, with 1,178 (97.7%) meeting the criteria for completed screening uptake.
Overall, screening uptake was higher in the intervention group than in control participants, at 26.3% vs. 17.4%, respectively (relative risk, 1.51).
Intervention participants were also more likely than controls to have a positive test result (relative risk, 1.49) and to receive treatment (relative risk, 1.70).
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost between the study groups divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening within 6 months, ranged from $85.84 per additional completed screening to $146.29, depending on the health system and test considered.
In terms of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for each additional completed screening, the team found that home-based screening achieved a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness, at a WTP of just $148 if the participant’s last Pap test was between 3.4 and 5.0 years before randomization.
A 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was also achieved at a WTP of $198 among participants aged 50-64 years, a threshold that was lower than that among other age groups.
At a WTP threshold of over $350, the intervention was considered to have 100% probability of being cost-effective in all age groups.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Winer reports a relationship with the National Cancer Institute outside of the submitted work, as do several other authors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For women who are overdue for cervical cancer screening, mailing self-sampling kits for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is a cost-effective means of increasing screening uptake, reveals an analysis of a large U.S. trial.
The finding comes from a randomized trial in almost 20,000 women, which compared women who received a mailed HPV testing kit with those who did not. The results show that mailing was most cost-effective in women aged 50-64 years and in those who were only recently overdue for cervical screening.
The study was published by JAMA Network Open.
“These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates in U.S. health care systems,” say the authors, led by Rachel L. Winer, PhD, MPH, department of epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle.
They note that their results are consistent with those from previous studies in other health care contexts, but their analysis “benefited from the randomized clinical trial design and a large sample size,” they write.
However, they point out that the trial was conducted “before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and it is “well established” that cancer screening rates “decreased substantially during the pandemic.”
They suggest that mailed HPV self-sampling kits could nevertheless be a “means of overcoming screening barriers among underscreened women,” which may have been exacerbated by the “societal consequences of the pandemic.”
Reducing barriers to screening
Cervical screening is associated with “substantial global reductions” in the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer, the authors point out. Because most cases of the disease are consequently preventable, it now occurs “predominantly in individuals who have never or rarely received screening.”
Home-based HPV-only testing reduces the need for office visits and reduces barriers to screening, such as discomfort, embarrassment, and difficulties with scheduling or attending appointments.
Previous studies have shown that the direct mailing of home-based HPV self-collection kits is associated with increased uptake of screening among underscreened women and is cost-effective, although the researchers point out that these previous studies were conducted in countries with “organized national screening programs.”
For their own study, they focused on home-based HPV screening among underscreened individuals in the United States. The team examined data from the Home-based Options to Make cervical cancer screening Easy trial, which has previously showed that mailing kits to women increased screening uptake, compared with usual care alone.
For the current analysis, they conducted an economic evaluation of data on 19,851 trial participants, who were randomized to receive home-based screening or usual care between February 2014 and August 2016 and were followed up to February 2018.
All of the women were aged 30-64 years and had been enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPW) for at least 3 years and 5 months. They were also required not have undergone a hysterectomy.
Participant-level economic data were collected between June 2019 and March 2021, with intervention delivery costs calculated from the perspective of both the KPW and Medicare health systems and based on the cost of either a wellness visit or Papanicolaou (Pap) test–only visit.
The mean age of the participants was 50.1 years, and the majority (76.7%) were White; 9.7% were Asian and 4.7% were Black or African American.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the group assigned to usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc screening outreach, and those in the intervention group, who received usual care and a mailed HPV self-sampling kit.
The researchers report that 1,206 women in the intervention group sent back a mailed HPV kit, with 1,178 (97.7%) meeting the criteria for completed screening uptake.
Overall, screening uptake was higher in the intervention group than in control participants, at 26.3% vs. 17.4%, respectively (relative risk, 1.51).
Intervention participants were also more likely than controls to have a positive test result (relative risk, 1.49) and to receive treatment (relative risk, 1.70).
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost between the study groups divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening within 6 months, ranged from $85.84 per additional completed screening to $146.29, depending on the health system and test considered.
In terms of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for each additional completed screening, the team found that home-based screening achieved a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness, at a WTP of just $148 if the participant’s last Pap test was between 3.4 and 5.0 years before randomization.
A 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was also achieved at a WTP of $198 among participants aged 50-64 years, a threshold that was lower than that among other age groups.
At a WTP threshold of over $350, the intervention was considered to have 100% probability of being cost-effective in all age groups.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Winer reports a relationship with the National Cancer Institute outside of the submitted work, as do several other authors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For women who are overdue for cervical cancer screening, mailing self-sampling kits for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is a cost-effective means of increasing screening uptake, reveals an analysis of a large U.S. trial.
The finding comes from a randomized trial in almost 20,000 women, which compared women who received a mailed HPV testing kit with those who did not. The results show that mailing was most cost-effective in women aged 50-64 years and in those who were only recently overdue for cervical screening.
The study was published by JAMA Network Open.
“These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates in U.S. health care systems,” say the authors, led by Rachel L. Winer, PhD, MPH, department of epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle.
They note that their results are consistent with those from previous studies in other health care contexts, but their analysis “benefited from the randomized clinical trial design and a large sample size,” they write.
However, they point out that the trial was conducted “before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and it is “well established” that cancer screening rates “decreased substantially during the pandemic.”
They suggest that mailed HPV self-sampling kits could nevertheless be a “means of overcoming screening barriers among underscreened women,” which may have been exacerbated by the “societal consequences of the pandemic.”
Reducing barriers to screening
Cervical screening is associated with “substantial global reductions” in the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer, the authors point out. Because most cases of the disease are consequently preventable, it now occurs “predominantly in individuals who have never or rarely received screening.”
Home-based HPV-only testing reduces the need for office visits and reduces barriers to screening, such as discomfort, embarrassment, and difficulties with scheduling or attending appointments.
Previous studies have shown that the direct mailing of home-based HPV self-collection kits is associated with increased uptake of screening among underscreened women and is cost-effective, although the researchers point out that these previous studies were conducted in countries with “organized national screening programs.”
For their own study, they focused on home-based HPV screening among underscreened individuals in the United States. The team examined data from the Home-based Options to Make cervical cancer screening Easy trial, which has previously showed that mailing kits to women increased screening uptake, compared with usual care alone.
For the current analysis, they conducted an economic evaluation of data on 19,851 trial participants, who were randomized to receive home-based screening or usual care between February 2014 and August 2016 and were followed up to February 2018.
All of the women were aged 30-64 years and had been enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPW) for at least 3 years and 5 months. They were also required not have undergone a hysterectomy.
Participant-level economic data were collected between June 2019 and March 2021, with intervention delivery costs calculated from the perspective of both the KPW and Medicare health systems and based on the cost of either a wellness visit or Papanicolaou (Pap) test–only visit.
The mean age of the participants was 50.1 years, and the majority (76.7%) were White; 9.7% were Asian and 4.7% were Black or African American.
There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the group assigned to usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc screening outreach, and those in the intervention group, who received usual care and a mailed HPV self-sampling kit.
The researchers report that 1,206 women in the intervention group sent back a mailed HPV kit, with 1,178 (97.7%) meeting the criteria for completed screening uptake.
Overall, screening uptake was higher in the intervention group than in control participants, at 26.3% vs. 17.4%, respectively (relative risk, 1.51).
Intervention participants were also more likely than controls to have a positive test result (relative risk, 1.49) and to receive treatment (relative risk, 1.70).
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost between the study groups divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening within 6 months, ranged from $85.84 per additional completed screening to $146.29, depending on the health system and test considered.
In terms of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for each additional completed screening, the team found that home-based screening achieved a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness, at a WTP of just $148 if the participant’s last Pap test was between 3.4 and 5.0 years before randomization.
A 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was also achieved at a WTP of $198 among participants aged 50-64 years, a threshold that was lower than that among other age groups.
At a WTP threshold of over $350, the intervention was considered to have 100% probability of being cost-effective in all age groups.
The study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Winer reports a relationship with the National Cancer Institute outside of the submitted work, as do several other authors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Headache before the revolution: A clinician looks back
Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.
But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.
In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.
After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.
But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
The early years
Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.
On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”
DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.
“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.
“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.
Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
The triptan era
Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)
Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.
Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
Medication overuse headache
The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.
Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.
Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”
Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
The next revolution: CGRP and gepants
Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.
In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”
The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.
Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.
In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
Headache treatment today
Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.
Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.
“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”
Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.
“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”
Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.
*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.
Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.
But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.
In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.
After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.
But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
The early years
Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.
On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”
DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.
“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.
“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.
Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
The triptan era
Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)
Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.
Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
Medication overuse headache
The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.
Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.
Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”
Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
The next revolution: CGRP and gepants
Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.
In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”
The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.
Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.
In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
Headache treatment today
Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.
Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.
“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”
Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.
“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”
Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.
*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.
Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.
But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.
In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.
After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.
But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
The early years
Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.
On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”
DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.
“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.
“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.
Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
The triptan era
Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)
Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.
Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
Medication overuse headache
The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.
Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.
Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”
Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
The next revolution: CGRP and gepants
Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.
In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”
The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.
Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.
In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
Headache treatment today
Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.
Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.
“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”
Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.
“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”
Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.
*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.
Possible C. difficile–colon cancer connection: Study
C. diff. is a bacterium that infects the large intestine, causing difficult GI symptoms like frequent diarrhea. C. diff. is a widespread infection among patients who have been hospitalized, estimated at almost a half-million cases per year. It’s extremely contagious.
C. diff. has been known to lead to dangerous problems like sepsis if left untreated. Previous research has found there is a higher amount of C. diff. in cancerous lesions than in healthy body tissue, but a recent study published in Cancer Discovery by Johns Hopkins and Vanderbilt University has expanded upon the link between C. diff. and colon cancer. This study, which was conducted in mice, found that C. diff. bacteria may change normal cells to cancer cells.
In colon cancer, the surface of the colon tends to be covered in biofilms – or dense amounts of bacteria. In this study, researchers found that C. diff. was capable of producing colorectal tumors in a cascade.
“Big picture, we’re working to learn what the exact mechanism for this is,” said Julia L. Drewes, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and a coauthor of the study.
Anyone can get C. diff., but certain people are more susceptible.
“People who are over 65, have weakened immune systems, live in nursing homes, or work in health care settings are most at risk for C. diff.,” said Lilian Chen, MD, a colon and rectal surgeon at Tufts Medical Centerand assistant professor of surgery at Tufts University, both in Boston. “People with C. diff. can also get it again. One in six patients will end up with recurrent infections.”
Another risk factor: taking antibiotics. “Trillions of microbes are normally found in and on our body, including both good and bad bacteria,” said Caroline Um, PhD, MPH, principal scientist in epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society. “Normally, good bacteria help us fight against bad bacteria such as C. diff. However, you may have a greater chance of C. diff. infection after taking antibiotics, since they usually wipe out both good and bad bacteria in our gut.”
C. diff. is transmitted through stool, often if someone doesn’t wash their hands after using the bathroom. If you touch that person’s skin or a surface that person touched, your body can be “colonized” with the bacteria.
“Once someone is colonized with C. diff., you find it everywhere in their environment. In fact, C. diff. is all around all of us,” said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist at the NYU Langone Medical Center and director of GI outcomes research at New York University. “In a healthy person, this kind of exposure doesn’t matter because C. diff. will not make them sick. It’s when someone has a compromised immune system that C. diff. becomes a concern.”
C. diff. may kickstart the process of how cancer begins to form through inflammation
“There are two types of toxins present in C. diff.: toxin A and toxin B,” said Dr. Drewes. “We need to do more work in order to determine an exact mechanism, but toxin B, or TcdB, which is found in a majority of C. diff. infections, appears to drive inflammation in the body. This inflammation contributes to cell damage in the colon, which may then be connected to a mutation that can cause cancer.”
The findings could help researchers understand why so many people under the age of 50 are now being diagnosed with colon cancer.
“We need a better understanding of the potential role of C. diff. in colorectal cancer before we can determine whether this changes current colorectal cancer screening guidelines,” said Dr. Um. “However, it’s a good idea to talk with your health care professional about colorectal cancer screening, regardless of whether you have had C. diff.. Various factors like smoking, poor diet, being overweight, or having a family history of colorectal cancer can affect an individual’s risk.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
C. diff. is a bacterium that infects the large intestine, causing difficult GI symptoms like frequent diarrhea. C. diff. is a widespread infection among patients who have been hospitalized, estimated at almost a half-million cases per year. It’s extremely contagious.
C. diff. has been known to lead to dangerous problems like sepsis if left untreated. Previous research has found there is a higher amount of C. diff. in cancerous lesions than in healthy body tissue, but a recent study published in Cancer Discovery by Johns Hopkins and Vanderbilt University has expanded upon the link between C. diff. and colon cancer. This study, which was conducted in mice, found that C. diff. bacteria may change normal cells to cancer cells.
In colon cancer, the surface of the colon tends to be covered in biofilms – or dense amounts of bacteria. In this study, researchers found that C. diff. was capable of producing colorectal tumors in a cascade.
“Big picture, we’re working to learn what the exact mechanism for this is,” said Julia L. Drewes, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and a coauthor of the study.
Anyone can get C. diff., but certain people are more susceptible.
“People who are over 65, have weakened immune systems, live in nursing homes, or work in health care settings are most at risk for C. diff.,” said Lilian Chen, MD, a colon and rectal surgeon at Tufts Medical Centerand assistant professor of surgery at Tufts University, both in Boston. “People with C. diff. can also get it again. One in six patients will end up with recurrent infections.”
Another risk factor: taking antibiotics. “Trillions of microbes are normally found in and on our body, including both good and bad bacteria,” said Caroline Um, PhD, MPH, principal scientist in epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society. “Normally, good bacteria help us fight against bad bacteria such as C. diff. However, you may have a greater chance of C. diff. infection after taking antibiotics, since they usually wipe out both good and bad bacteria in our gut.”
C. diff. is transmitted through stool, often if someone doesn’t wash their hands after using the bathroom. If you touch that person’s skin or a surface that person touched, your body can be “colonized” with the bacteria.
“Once someone is colonized with C. diff., you find it everywhere in their environment. In fact, C. diff. is all around all of us,” said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist at the NYU Langone Medical Center and director of GI outcomes research at New York University. “In a healthy person, this kind of exposure doesn’t matter because C. diff. will not make them sick. It’s when someone has a compromised immune system that C. diff. becomes a concern.”
C. diff. may kickstart the process of how cancer begins to form through inflammation
“There are two types of toxins present in C. diff.: toxin A and toxin B,” said Dr. Drewes. “We need to do more work in order to determine an exact mechanism, but toxin B, or TcdB, which is found in a majority of C. diff. infections, appears to drive inflammation in the body. This inflammation contributes to cell damage in the colon, which may then be connected to a mutation that can cause cancer.”
The findings could help researchers understand why so many people under the age of 50 are now being diagnosed with colon cancer.
“We need a better understanding of the potential role of C. diff. in colorectal cancer before we can determine whether this changes current colorectal cancer screening guidelines,” said Dr. Um. “However, it’s a good idea to talk with your health care professional about colorectal cancer screening, regardless of whether you have had C. diff.. Various factors like smoking, poor diet, being overweight, or having a family history of colorectal cancer can affect an individual’s risk.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
C. diff. is a bacterium that infects the large intestine, causing difficult GI symptoms like frequent diarrhea. C. diff. is a widespread infection among patients who have been hospitalized, estimated at almost a half-million cases per year. It’s extremely contagious.
C. diff. has been known to lead to dangerous problems like sepsis if left untreated. Previous research has found there is a higher amount of C. diff. in cancerous lesions than in healthy body tissue, but a recent study published in Cancer Discovery by Johns Hopkins and Vanderbilt University has expanded upon the link between C. diff. and colon cancer. This study, which was conducted in mice, found that C. diff. bacteria may change normal cells to cancer cells.
In colon cancer, the surface of the colon tends to be covered in biofilms – or dense amounts of bacteria. In this study, researchers found that C. diff. was capable of producing colorectal tumors in a cascade.
“Big picture, we’re working to learn what the exact mechanism for this is,” said Julia L. Drewes, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and a coauthor of the study.
Anyone can get C. diff., but certain people are more susceptible.
“People who are over 65, have weakened immune systems, live in nursing homes, or work in health care settings are most at risk for C. diff.,” said Lilian Chen, MD, a colon and rectal surgeon at Tufts Medical Centerand assistant professor of surgery at Tufts University, both in Boston. “People with C. diff. can also get it again. One in six patients will end up with recurrent infections.”
Another risk factor: taking antibiotics. “Trillions of microbes are normally found in and on our body, including both good and bad bacteria,” said Caroline Um, PhD, MPH, principal scientist in epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society. “Normally, good bacteria help us fight against bad bacteria such as C. diff. However, you may have a greater chance of C. diff. infection after taking antibiotics, since they usually wipe out both good and bad bacteria in our gut.”
C. diff. is transmitted through stool, often if someone doesn’t wash their hands after using the bathroom. If you touch that person’s skin or a surface that person touched, your body can be “colonized” with the bacteria.
“Once someone is colonized with C. diff., you find it everywhere in their environment. In fact, C. diff. is all around all of us,” said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist at the NYU Langone Medical Center and director of GI outcomes research at New York University. “In a healthy person, this kind of exposure doesn’t matter because C. diff. will not make them sick. It’s when someone has a compromised immune system that C. diff. becomes a concern.”
C. diff. may kickstart the process of how cancer begins to form through inflammation
“There are two types of toxins present in C. diff.: toxin A and toxin B,” said Dr. Drewes. “We need to do more work in order to determine an exact mechanism, but toxin B, or TcdB, which is found in a majority of C. diff. infections, appears to drive inflammation in the body. This inflammation contributes to cell damage in the colon, which may then be connected to a mutation that can cause cancer.”
The findings could help researchers understand why so many people under the age of 50 are now being diagnosed with colon cancer.
“We need a better understanding of the potential role of C. diff. in colorectal cancer before we can determine whether this changes current colorectal cancer screening guidelines,” said Dr. Um. “However, it’s a good idea to talk with your health care professional about colorectal cancer screening, regardless of whether you have had C. diff.. Various factors like smoking, poor diet, being overweight, or having a family history of colorectal cancer can affect an individual’s risk.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM CANCER DISCOVERY
Exercise capacity and QOL linked to significant survival benefit with endobronchial valves
according to study results published in Respiratory Medicine. The benefits were independent of reduction in target lobe volume or the presence of a complete lobar atelectasis.
In patients with more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the usual treatments of smoking cessation, pharmacological therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation aiming for symptom reduction, minimizing the burden of disease, slowing disease progression, and improving exercise tolerance fall short according to Sharyn A. Roodenburg, PhD candidate in the department of pulmonary diseases, University of Groningen (the Netherlands), and colleagues.
Lung volume reduction is generally reserved for patients with COPD that has a predominantly emphysematous phenotype and severely hyperinflated lungs. While both surgical and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) approaches are in use, bronchoscopic approaches are less invasive and incur lower morbidity. When technically feasible, they are generally preferred over open surgery.
BLVR using endobronchial valves (EBV), the most effective and commonly employed technique, has been shown in randomized controlled trials to improve pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life.
Noting a survival benefit in prior studies among patients with complete lobar atelectasis following treatment, the authors wrote that their own clinical experience has been that significant treatment responses (pulmonary function and/or exercise capacity) observed in patients with a partial lobar atelectasis may also be associated with a survival benefit. Their aim was to evaluate whether pulmonary function, radiological, health-related quality of life, and/or exercise capacity outcome responders to EBV treatment have a survival benefit over nonresponders.
Their analysis included data collected prospectively out of four clinical trials (CHARTIS, STELVIO, IMPACT, and LIBERATE) from June 2008 to Dec. 2020 at the University Medical Center Groningen. Predetermined potential predictors of survival included change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), change in residual volume (RV), change in RV/total lung capacity (RV/TLC) ratio, change in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), change in total score on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), target lobe volume reduction (TLVR), and presence of complete lobar atelectasis (defined as a TLVR of 100%).
Mean age was 61.3 years among the 428 included patients (68% women). Data on both the 6MWD and SGRQ total score at baseline and 1-year follow-up were available for 252 patients. SGRQ decreased by 8.3 points or more, and 6MWD increased by 26 meters or more over baseline. Among these patients, 113 (45%) were responders on both 6MWD and SGRQ, 49 (19%) patients were responders on 6MWD only, 31 (12%) patients on SGRQ only, and 59 (23%) were nonresponders on both. Survival was significantly worse among nonresponders on 6MWD, SGRQ, or on both. 6MWD and SGRQ response were independent predictors for improved survival time (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.89; P = .02 and HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.94; P = .03, respectively). Survival was not significantly affected by the presence of complete lobar atelectasis or pulmonary function improvements.
“Especially in patients with a low FEV1 (< 50% predicted), 6-minute walk distance was found to be a better predictor for mortality than pulmonary function. A possible explanation for why change in 6-minute walk distance is a better predictor for survival after EBV treatment than the change in pulmonary function and hyperinflation might be that the 6-minute walk distance not only reflects the pulmonary limitation of these patients, but also captures the extrapulmonary manifestations of COPD, such as cardiac dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, fatigue, and psychological symptoms, all of which can impact survival,” the authors noted
The study received no funding, and the authors did not report any disclosures.
This article was updated 3/30/23.
according to study results published in Respiratory Medicine. The benefits were independent of reduction in target lobe volume or the presence of a complete lobar atelectasis.
In patients with more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the usual treatments of smoking cessation, pharmacological therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation aiming for symptom reduction, minimizing the burden of disease, slowing disease progression, and improving exercise tolerance fall short according to Sharyn A. Roodenburg, PhD candidate in the department of pulmonary diseases, University of Groningen (the Netherlands), and colleagues.
Lung volume reduction is generally reserved for patients with COPD that has a predominantly emphysematous phenotype and severely hyperinflated lungs. While both surgical and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) approaches are in use, bronchoscopic approaches are less invasive and incur lower morbidity. When technically feasible, they are generally preferred over open surgery.
BLVR using endobronchial valves (EBV), the most effective and commonly employed technique, has been shown in randomized controlled trials to improve pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life.
Noting a survival benefit in prior studies among patients with complete lobar atelectasis following treatment, the authors wrote that their own clinical experience has been that significant treatment responses (pulmonary function and/or exercise capacity) observed in patients with a partial lobar atelectasis may also be associated with a survival benefit. Their aim was to evaluate whether pulmonary function, radiological, health-related quality of life, and/or exercise capacity outcome responders to EBV treatment have a survival benefit over nonresponders.
Their analysis included data collected prospectively out of four clinical trials (CHARTIS, STELVIO, IMPACT, and LIBERATE) from June 2008 to Dec. 2020 at the University Medical Center Groningen. Predetermined potential predictors of survival included change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), change in residual volume (RV), change in RV/total lung capacity (RV/TLC) ratio, change in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), change in total score on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), target lobe volume reduction (TLVR), and presence of complete lobar atelectasis (defined as a TLVR of 100%).
Mean age was 61.3 years among the 428 included patients (68% women). Data on both the 6MWD and SGRQ total score at baseline and 1-year follow-up were available for 252 patients. SGRQ decreased by 8.3 points or more, and 6MWD increased by 26 meters or more over baseline. Among these patients, 113 (45%) were responders on both 6MWD and SGRQ, 49 (19%) patients were responders on 6MWD only, 31 (12%) patients on SGRQ only, and 59 (23%) were nonresponders on both. Survival was significantly worse among nonresponders on 6MWD, SGRQ, or on both. 6MWD and SGRQ response were independent predictors for improved survival time (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.89; P = .02 and HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.94; P = .03, respectively). Survival was not significantly affected by the presence of complete lobar atelectasis or pulmonary function improvements.
“Especially in patients with a low FEV1 (< 50% predicted), 6-minute walk distance was found to be a better predictor for mortality than pulmonary function. A possible explanation for why change in 6-minute walk distance is a better predictor for survival after EBV treatment than the change in pulmonary function and hyperinflation might be that the 6-minute walk distance not only reflects the pulmonary limitation of these patients, but also captures the extrapulmonary manifestations of COPD, such as cardiac dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, fatigue, and psychological symptoms, all of which can impact survival,” the authors noted
The study received no funding, and the authors did not report any disclosures.
This article was updated 3/30/23.
according to study results published in Respiratory Medicine. The benefits were independent of reduction in target lobe volume or the presence of a complete lobar atelectasis.
In patients with more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the usual treatments of smoking cessation, pharmacological therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation aiming for symptom reduction, minimizing the burden of disease, slowing disease progression, and improving exercise tolerance fall short according to Sharyn A. Roodenburg, PhD candidate in the department of pulmonary diseases, University of Groningen (the Netherlands), and colleagues.
Lung volume reduction is generally reserved for patients with COPD that has a predominantly emphysematous phenotype and severely hyperinflated lungs. While both surgical and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) approaches are in use, bronchoscopic approaches are less invasive and incur lower morbidity. When technically feasible, they are generally preferred over open surgery.
BLVR using endobronchial valves (EBV), the most effective and commonly employed technique, has been shown in randomized controlled trials to improve pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life.
Noting a survival benefit in prior studies among patients with complete lobar atelectasis following treatment, the authors wrote that their own clinical experience has been that significant treatment responses (pulmonary function and/or exercise capacity) observed in patients with a partial lobar atelectasis may also be associated with a survival benefit. Their aim was to evaluate whether pulmonary function, radiological, health-related quality of life, and/or exercise capacity outcome responders to EBV treatment have a survival benefit over nonresponders.
Their analysis included data collected prospectively out of four clinical trials (CHARTIS, STELVIO, IMPACT, and LIBERATE) from June 2008 to Dec. 2020 at the University Medical Center Groningen. Predetermined potential predictors of survival included change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), change in residual volume (RV), change in RV/total lung capacity (RV/TLC) ratio, change in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), change in total score on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), target lobe volume reduction (TLVR), and presence of complete lobar atelectasis (defined as a TLVR of 100%).
Mean age was 61.3 years among the 428 included patients (68% women). Data on both the 6MWD and SGRQ total score at baseline and 1-year follow-up were available for 252 patients. SGRQ decreased by 8.3 points or more, and 6MWD increased by 26 meters or more over baseline. Among these patients, 113 (45%) were responders on both 6MWD and SGRQ, 49 (19%) patients were responders on 6MWD only, 31 (12%) patients on SGRQ only, and 59 (23%) were nonresponders on both. Survival was significantly worse among nonresponders on 6MWD, SGRQ, or on both. 6MWD and SGRQ response were independent predictors for improved survival time (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.89; P = .02 and HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.94; P = .03, respectively). Survival was not significantly affected by the presence of complete lobar atelectasis or pulmonary function improvements.
“Especially in patients with a low FEV1 (< 50% predicted), 6-minute walk distance was found to be a better predictor for mortality than pulmonary function. A possible explanation for why change in 6-minute walk distance is a better predictor for survival after EBV treatment than the change in pulmonary function and hyperinflation might be that the 6-minute walk distance not only reflects the pulmonary limitation of these patients, but also captures the extrapulmonary manifestations of COPD, such as cardiac dysfunction, musculoskeletal disorders, fatigue, and psychological symptoms, all of which can impact survival,” the authors noted
The study received no funding, and the authors did not report any disclosures.
This article was updated 3/30/23.
FROM RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Hydroxyurea underused in youth with sickle cell anemia
Even after endorsement in updated guidelines, hydroxyurea is substantially underused in youth with sickle cell anemia (SCA), new research indicates.
SCA can lead to pain crises, stroke, and early death. Hydroxyurea, an oral disease-modifying medication, can reduce the complications.
In 2014, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute published revised guidelines that hydroxyurea should be offered as the primary therapy to all patients who were at least 9 months old and living with SCA, regardless of disease severity.
Low uptake even after guideline revision
Yet, a research team led by Sarah L. Reeves, PhD, MPH, with the Child Health Evaluation and Research Center at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, found in their study of use in two sample states – Michigan and New York – that hydroxyurea use was low in children and adolescents enrolled in Medicaid and increased only slightly in Michigan and not at all in New York after the guideline revision.
After the guidelines were updated, the researchers observed that, on average, children and adolescents were getting the medication less than a third of the days in a year (32% maximum in the year with the highest uptake). The data were gathered from a study population that included 4,302 youths aged 1-17 years with SCA.
Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
‘A national issue’
Russell Ware, MD, PhD, chair of hematology translational research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was not part of the research, says that though data were gathered from Michigan and New York, “this is a national issue.”
Dr. Ware says the main problem is the way the health system describes the importance of hydroxyurea.
“There needs to be a realization that hydroxyurea is the standard of care for children with sickle cell anemia. It’s not just something they should take when they’re sick,” Dr. Ware said.
He added, “If you have diabetes, should you only take insulin if you’re really sick and hospitalized with a diabetic coma? Of course not.”
He said often providers aren’t giving a clear and consistent message to families.
“They’re not all sure they want to recommend it. They might offer it,” Dr. Ware said, which jeopardizes uptake. “Providers need to be more committed to it. They need to know how to dose it.”
Bad rap from past indications
Dr. Ware says hydroxyurea also gets a bad rap from use decades ago as a chemotherapeutic agent for cancer and then as an anti-HIV medication.
Now it’s used in a completely different way with SCA, but the fear of the association lingers.
“This label as a chemotherapeutic agent has really dogged hydroxyurea,” he said. “It’s a completely different mechanism. It’s a different dose. It’s a different purpose.”
The message to families should be more direct, he says: “Your child has sickle cell anemia and needs to be on disease-modifying therapy because this is a life-threatening disease.”
The underuse of this drug is particularly ironic, he says, as each capsule, taken daily, “costs about fifty cents.”
Medicaid support critical
Authors conclude that multifaceted interventions may be necessary to increase the number of filled prescriptions and use. They also point out that the interventions rely on states’ Medicaid support regarding hydroxyurea use. From 70% to 90% of young people with SCA are covered by Medicaid at some point, the researchers write.
“Variation may exist across states, as well as within states, in the coverage of hydroxyurea, outpatient visits, and associated lab monitoring,” they note.
The authors point to interventions in clinical trials that have had some success in hydroxyurea use.
Creary et al., for example, found that electronic directly observed therapy was associated with high adherence. That involved sending daily texts to patients to take hydroxyurea and patients recording and sending daily videos that show they took the medication.
The authors add that incorporating clinical pharmacists into the care team to provide education and support for families has been shown to be associated with successful outcomes for other chronic conditions – this approach may be particularly well suited to hydroxyurea given that this medication requires significant dosage monitoring.
Dr. Ware, however, says that solutions should focus on the health system more clearly communicating that hydroxyurea is the standard of care for all kids with SCA.
“We need to dispel these myths and these labels that are unfairly attributed to it. Then we’d probably do a lot better,” he said.
He added that children with SCA, “are a marginalized, neglected population of patients historically,” and addressing social determinants of health is also important in getting better uptake.
“Our pharmacy, for example, ships the drug to the families if they’re just getting a refill rather than making them drive all the way in,” Dr. Ware says.
Dr. Ware said given the interruption in doctor/patient relationships in the pandemic, the poor uptake of hydroxyurea could be even worse now.
The work was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Coauthor Dr. Green was the principal investigator of an NIH-funded trial of hydroxyurea in Uganda with a study drug provided by Siklos. No other author disclosures were reported. In addition to receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Ware receives research donations from Bristol Myers Squibb, Addmedica, and Hemex Health. He is a medical adviser for Nova Laboratories and Octapharma, and serves on Data Safety Monitoring Boards for Novartis and Editas.
Even after endorsement in updated guidelines, hydroxyurea is substantially underused in youth with sickle cell anemia (SCA), new research indicates.
SCA can lead to pain crises, stroke, and early death. Hydroxyurea, an oral disease-modifying medication, can reduce the complications.
In 2014, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute published revised guidelines that hydroxyurea should be offered as the primary therapy to all patients who were at least 9 months old and living with SCA, regardless of disease severity.
Low uptake even after guideline revision
Yet, a research team led by Sarah L. Reeves, PhD, MPH, with the Child Health Evaluation and Research Center at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, found in their study of use in two sample states – Michigan and New York – that hydroxyurea use was low in children and adolescents enrolled in Medicaid and increased only slightly in Michigan and not at all in New York after the guideline revision.
After the guidelines were updated, the researchers observed that, on average, children and adolescents were getting the medication less than a third of the days in a year (32% maximum in the year with the highest uptake). The data were gathered from a study population that included 4,302 youths aged 1-17 years with SCA.
Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
‘A national issue’
Russell Ware, MD, PhD, chair of hematology translational research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was not part of the research, says that though data were gathered from Michigan and New York, “this is a national issue.”
Dr. Ware says the main problem is the way the health system describes the importance of hydroxyurea.
“There needs to be a realization that hydroxyurea is the standard of care for children with sickle cell anemia. It’s not just something they should take when they’re sick,” Dr. Ware said.
He added, “If you have diabetes, should you only take insulin if you’re really sick and hospitalized with a diabetic coma? Of course not.”
He said often providers aren’t giving a clear and consistent message to families.
“They’re not all sure they want to recommend it. They might offer it,” Dr. Ware said, which jeopardizes uptake. “Providers need to be more committed to it. They need to know how to dose it.”
Bad rap from past indications
Dr. Ware says hydroxyurea also gets a bad rap from use decades ago as a chemotherapeutic agent for cancer and then as an anti-HIV medication.
Now it’s used in a completely different way with SCA, but the fear of the association lingers.
“This label as a chemotherapeutic agent has really dogged hydroxyurea,” he said. “It’s a completely different mechanism. It’s a different dose. It’s a different purpose.”
The message to families should be more direct, he says: “Your child has sickle cell anemia and needs to be on disease-modifying therapy because this is a life-threatening disease.”
The underuse of this drug is particularly ironic, he says, as each capsule, taken daily, “costs about fifty cents.”
Medicaid support critical
Authors conclude that multifaceted interventions may be necessary to increase the number of filled prescriptions and use. They also point out that the interventions rely on states’ Medicaid support regarding hydroxyurea use. From 70% to 90% of young people with SCA are covered by Medicaid at some point, the researchers write.
“Variation may exist across states, as well as within states, in the coverage of hydroxyurea, outpatient visits, and associated lab monitoring,” they note.
The authors point to interventions in clinical trials that have had some success in hydroxyurea use.
Creary et al., for example, found that electronic directly observed therapy was associated with high adherence. That involved sending daily texts to patients to take hydroxyurea and patients recording and sending daily videos that show they took the medication.
The authors add that incorporating clinical pharmacists into the care team to provide education and support for families has been shown to be associated with successful outcomes for other chronic conditions – this approach may be particularly well suited to hydroxyurea given that this medication requires significant dosage monitoring.
Dr. Ware, however, says that solutions should focus on the health system more clearly communicating that hydroxyurea is the standard of care for all kids with SCA.
“We need to dispel these myths and these labels that are unfairly attributed to it. Then we’d probably do a lot better,” he said.
He added that children with SCA, “are a marginalized, neglected population of patients historically,” and addressing social determinants of health is also important in getting better uptake.
“Our pharmacy, for example, ships the drug to the families if they’re just getting a refill rather than making them drive all the way in,” Dr. Ware says.
Dr. Ware said given the interruption in doctor/patient relationships in the pandemic, the poor uptake of hydroxyurea could be even worse now.
The work was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Coauthor Dr. Green was the principal investigator of an NIH-funded trial of hydroxyurea in Uganda with a study drug provided by Siklos. No other author disclosures were reported. In addition to receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Ware receives research donations from Bristol Myers Squibb, Addmedica, and Hemex Health. He is a medical adviser for Nova Laboratories and Octapharma, and serves on Data Safety Monitoring Boards for Novartis and Editas.
Even after endorsement in updated guidelines, hydroxyurea is substantially underused in youth with sickle cell anemia (SCA), new research indicates.
SCA can lead to pain crises, stroke, and early death. Hydroxyurea, an oral disease-modifying medication, can reduce the complications.
In 2014, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute published revised guidelines that hydroxyurea should be offered as the primary therapy to all patients who were at least 9 months old and living with SCA, regardless of disease severity.
Low uptake even after guideline revision
Yet, a research team led by Sarah L. Reeves, PhD, MPH, with the Child Health Evaluation and Research Center at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, found in their study of use in two sample states – Michigan and New York – that hydroxyurea use was low in children and adolescents enrolled in Medicaid and increased only slightly in Michigan and not at all in New York after the guideline revision.
After the guidelines were updated, the researchers observed that, on average, children and adolescents were getting the medication less than a third of the days in a year (32% maximum in the year with the highest uptake). The data were gathered from a study population that included 4,302 youths aged 1-17 years with SCA.
Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
‘A national issue’
Russell Ware, MD, PhD, chair of hematology translational research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was not part of the research, says that though data were gathered from Michigan and New York, “this is a national issue.”
Dr. Ware says the main problem is the way the health system describes the importance of hydroxyurea.
“There needs to be a realization that hydroxyurea is the standard of care for children with sickle cell anemia. It’s not just something they should take when they’re sick,” Dr. Ware said.
He added, “If you have diabetes, should you only take insulin if you’re really sick and hospitalized with a diabetic coma? Of course not.”
He said often providers aren’t giving a clear and consistent message to families.
“They’re not all sure they want to recommend it. They might offer it,” Dr. Ware said, which jeopardizes uptake. “Providers need to be more committed to it. They need to know how to dose it.”
Bad rap from past indications
Dr. Ware says hydroxyurea also gets a bad rap from use decades ago as a chemotherapeutic agent for cancer and then as an anti-HIV medication.
Now it’s used in a completely different way with SCA, but the fear of the association lingers.
“This label as a chemotherapeutic agent has really dogged hydroxyurea,” he said. “It’s a completely different mechanism. It’s a different dose. It’s a different purpose.”
The message to families should be more direct, he says: “Your child has sickle cell anemia and needs to be on disease-modifying therapy because this is a life-threatening disease.”
The underuse of this drug is particularly ironic, he says, as each capsule, taken daily, “costs about fifty cents.”
Medicaid support critical
Authors conclude that multifaceted interventions may be necessary to increase the number of filled prescriptions and use. They also point out that the interventions rely on states’ Medicaid support regarding hydroxyurea use. From 70% to 90% of young people with SCA are covered by Medicaid at some point, the researchers write.
“Variation may exist across states, as well as within states, in the coverage of hydroxyurea, outpatient visits, and associated lab monitoring,” they note.
The authors point to interventions in clinical trials that have had some success in hydroxyurea use.
Creary et al., for example, found that electronic directly observed therapy was associated with high adherence. That involved sending daily texts to patients to take hydroxyurea and patients recording and sending daily videos that show they took the medication.
The authors add that incorporating clinical pharmacists into the care team to provide education and support for families has been shown to be associated with successful outcomes for other chronic conditions – this approach may be particularly well suited to hydroxyurea given that this medication requires significant dosage monitoring.
Dr. Ware, however, says that solutions should focus on the health system more clearly communicating that hydroxyurea is the standard of care for all kids with SCA.
“We need to dispel these myths and these labels that are unfairly attributed to it. Then we’d probably do a lot better,” he said.
He added that children with SCA, “are a marginalized, neglected population of patients historically,” and addressing social determinants of health is also important in getting better uptake.
“Our pharmacy, for example, ships the drug to the families if they’re just getting a refill rather than making them drive all the way in,” Dr. Ware says.
Dr. Ware said given the interruption in doctor/patient relationships in the pandemic, the poor uptake of hydroxyurea could be even worse now.
The work was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Coauthor Dr. Green was the principal investigator of an NIH-funded trial of hydroxyurea in Uganda with a study drug provided by Siklos. No other author disclosures were reported. In addition to receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Ware receives research donations from Bristol Myers Squibb, Addmedica, and Hemex Health. He is a medical adviser for Nova Laboratories and Octapharma, and serves on Data Safety Monitoring Boards for Novartis and Editas.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Pilot study evaluates sensitive skin burden in persons of color
NEW ORLEANS – .
Respondents also reported high rates of reactions to skin care products marketed for sensitive skin, and most said they had visited a dermatologist about their condition.
Those are among the key findings of a pilot study designed to assess the prevalence, symptom burden, and behaviors of self-identified persons of color with sensitive skin, which senior author Adam Friedman, MD, and colleagues defined as a subjective syndrome of cutaneous hyperreactivity to otherwise innocuous stimuli. “Improved understanding of sensitive skin is essential, and we encourage additional research into pathophysiology and creating a consensus definition for sensitive skin,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. The findings were also reported online in JAAD International.
In May of 2022, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues invited individuals attending a community health fair in an undeserved area of Washington, to complete the Sensitive Scale-10 (SS-10) and to answer other questions after receiving a brief education about sensitive skin. Of the 58 respondents, 78% were female, and 86% self-identified as a person of color.
“Our study population predominantly self-identified as Black, which only represents one piece of those who would be characterized as persons of color,” Dr. Friedman said. “That said, improved representation of both our study population, and furthermore persons of color, in all aspects of dermatology research is crucial to at a minimum ensure generalizability of findings to the U.S. population, and research on sensitive skin is but one component of this.”
Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (63.8%) reported having an underlying skin condition, most commonly acne (21%), eczema (17%), and rosacea (6%). More than half (57%) reported sensitive skin, 27% of whom reported no other skin disease. Individuals with sensitive skin had higher mean SS-10 scores, compared with those with nonsensitive skin (14.61 vs. 4.32; P = .002) and burning was the main symptom among those with sensitive skin (56%), followed by itch (50%), redness (39%), dryness (39%) and pain (17%).
Compared with those who did not meet criteria for sensitive skin, those who did were more likely to report a personal history of allergy (56.25% vs. 8.33%; P = .0002) and were nearly seven times more likely to have seen a dermatologist about their concerns (odds ratio, 6.857; P = .0012).
In other findings limited to respondents with sensitive skin, 72% who reported reactions to general consumer skin care products also reported reacting to products marketed for sensitive skin, and 94% reported reactivity to at least one trigger, most commonly extreme temperatures (34%), stress (34%), sweat (33%), sun exposure (29%), and diet (28%). “We were particularly surprised by the high rates of reactivity to skin care products designed for and marketed to those suffering with sensitive skin,” Ms. McCormick told this news organization. “Importantly, there is currently no federal or legal standard regulating ingredients in products marketed for sensitive skin, and many products lack testing in sensitive skin specifically. Our data suggest an opportunity for improvement of sensitive skin care.”
She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Reconducting this survey in a larger population will help validate our findings,” she said.
The research was supported by two independent research grants from Galderma: one supporting Ms. McCormick with a Sensitive Skin Research Fellowship and the other a Sensitive Skin Research Acceleration Fund. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – .
Respondents also reported high rates of reactions to skin care products marketed for sensitive skin, and most said they had visited a dermatologist about their condition.
Those are among the key findings of a pilot study designed to assess the prevalence, symptom burden, and behaviors of self-identified persons of color with sensitive skin, which senior author Adam Friedman, MD, and colleagues defined as a subjective syndrome of cutaneous hyperreactivity to otherwise innocuous stimuli. “Improved understanding of sensitive skin is essential, and we encourage additional research into pathophysiology and creating a consensus definition for sensitive skin,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. The findings were also reported online in JAAD International.
In May of 2022, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues invited individuals attending a community health fair in an undeserved area of Washington, to complete the Sensitive Scale-10 (SS-10) and to answer other questions after receiving a brief education about sensitive skin. Of the 58 respondents, 78% were female, and 86% self-identified as a person of color.
“Our study population predominantly self-identified as Black, which only represents one piece of those who would be characterized as persons of color,” Dr. Friedman said. “That said, improved representation of both our study population, and furthermore persons of color, in all aspects of dermatology research is crucial to at a minimum ensure generalizability of findings to the U.S. population, and research on sensitive skin is but one component of this.”
Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (63.8%) reported having an underlying skin condition, most commonly acne (21%), eczema (17%), and rosacea (6%). More than half (57%) reported sensitive skin, 27% of whom reported no other skin disease. Individuals with sensitive skin had higher mean SS-10 scores, compared with those with nonsensitive skin (14.61 vs. 4.32; P = .002) and burning was the main symptom among those with sensitive skin (56%), followed by itch (50%), redness (39%), dryness (39%) and pain (17%).
Compared with those who did not meet criteria for sensitive skin, those who did were more likely to report a personal history of allergy (56.25% vs. 8.33%; P = .0002) and were nearly seven times more likely to have seen a dermatologist about their concerns (odds ratio, 6.857; P = .0012).
In other findings limited to respondents with sensitive skin, 72% who reported reactions to general consumer skin care products also reported reacting to products marketed for sensitive skin, and 94% reported reactivity to at least one trigger, most commonly extreme temperatures (34%), stress (34%), sweat (33%), sun exposure (29%), and diet (28%). “We were particularly surprised by the high rates of reactivity to skin care products designed for and marketed to those suffering with sensitive skin,” Ms. McCormick told this news organization. “Importantly, there is currently no federal or legal standard regulating ingredients in products marketed for sensitive skin, and many products lack testing in sensitive skin specifically. Our data suggest an opportunity for improvement of sensitive skin care.”
She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Reconducting this survey in a larger population will help validate our findings,” she said.
The research was supported by two independent research grants from Galderma: one supporting Ms. McCormick with a Sensitive Skin Research Fellowship and the other a Sensitive Skin Research Acceleration Fund. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – .
Respondents also reported high rates of reactions to skin care products marketed for sensitive skin, and most said they had visited a dermatologist about their condition.
Those are among the key findings of a pilot study designed to assess the prevalence, symptom burden, and behaviors of self-identified persons of color with sensitive skin, which senior author Adam Friedman, MD, and colleagues defined as a subjective syndrome of cutaneous hyperreactivity to otherwise innocuous stimuli. “Improved understanding of sensitive skin is essential, and we encourage additional research into pathophysiology and creating a consensus definition for sensitive skin,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. The findings were also reported online in JAAD International.
In May of 2022, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues invited individuals attending a community health fair in an undeserved area of Washington, to complete the Sensitive Scale-10 (SS-10) and to answer other questions after receiving a brief education about sensitive skin. Of the 58 respondents, 78% were female, and 86% self-identified as a person of color.
“Our study population predominantly self-identified as Black, which only represents one piece of those who would be characterized as persons of color,” Dr. Friedman said. “That said, improved representation of both our study population, and furthermore persons of color, in all aspects of dermatology research is crucial to at a minimum ensure generalizability of findings to the U.S. population, and research on sensitive skin is but one component of this.”
Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (63.8%) reported having an underlying skin condition, most commonly acne (21%), eczema (17%), and rosacea (6%). More than half (57%) reported sensitive skin, 27% of whom reported no other skin disease. Individuals with sensitive skin had higher mean SS-10 scores, compared with those with nonsensitive skin (14.61 vs. 4.32; P = .002) and burning was the main symptom among those with sensitive skin (56%), followed by itch (50%), redness (39%), dryness (39%) and pain (17%).
Compared with those who did not meet criteria for sensitive skin, those who did were more likely to report a personal history of allergy (56.25% vs. 8.33%; P = .0002) and were nearly seven times more likely to have seen a dermatologist about their concerns (odds ratio, 6.857; P = .0012).
In other findings limited to respondents with sensitive skin, 72% who reported reactions to general consumer skin care products also reported reacting to products marketed for sensitive skin, and 94% reported reactivity to at least one trigger, most commonly extreme temperatures (34%), stress (34%), sweat (33%), sun exposure (29%), and diet (28%). “We were particularly surprised by the high rates of reactivity to skin care products designed for and marketed to those suffering with sensitive skin,” Ms. McCormick told this news organization. “Importantly, there is currently no federal or legal standard regulating ingredients in products marketed for sensitive skin, and many products lack testing in sensitive skin specifically. Our data suggest an opportunity for improvement of sensitive skin care.”
She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Reconducting this survey in a larger population will help validate our findings,” she said.
The research was supported by two independent research grants from Galderma: one supporting Ms. McCormick with a Sensitive Skin Research Fellowship and the other a Sensitive Skin Research Acceleration Fund. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT AAD 2023