Pain

TOPLINE:

Adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with longstanding back pain symptoms had response rates to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that were no different from patients with non-axSpA back pain of similar duration, according to findings from a prospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

The researchers recruited 233 consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain, including 68 with axSpA and 165 with non-axSpA back pain.

The mean ages of the participants in the axSpA and non-axSpA groups were 42.7 years and 49.3 years, respectively; symptom durations were approximately 15 years in both groups.

Participants were given NSAIDs and “any response” was defined as back pain improvement of more than two units on the Numerical Rating Scale, while “good response” was defined as an improvement of > 50% compared with baseline.

TAKEAWAY: 

After 4 weeks, 30.9% of patients with axSpA and 29.1% of patients with non-axSpA back pain had any response, and 23.5% and 16.4% of patients with axSpA and non-axSpA back pain, respectively, had a good response.

The proportion of patients showing improvement ranged from 19% to 31% in both groups after 4 weeks of treatment.

No significant differences in response appeared in subgroups of patients based on inflammatory back pain stage or in different axSpA stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“We think that this information has an effect on clinical practice since a response to NSAIDs is an important criterion in the ASAS [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society]/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology treatment recommendations that may influence decisions to initiate treatment with biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs]. Further, a good response to NSAIDs is also an important clinical feature in the ASAS classification criteria,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE: 

The lead author on the study was Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The study was published online on January 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The uneven sex match in the diagnoses and the history of NSAID treatment among patients in both groups were potential limiting factors. The researchers also noted that a similarly conducted study in patients with early disease could have findings that are “much different.”

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored in part by Novartis. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with longstanding back pain symptoms had response rates to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that were no different from patients with non-axSpA back pain of similar duration, according to findings from a prospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

The researchers recruited 233 consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain, including 68 with axSpA and 165 with non-axSpA back pain.

The mean ages of the participants in the axSpA and non-axSpA groups were 42.7 years and 49.3 years, respectively; symptom durations were approximately 15 years in both groups.

Participants were given NSAIDs and “any response” was defined as back pain improvement of more than two units on the Numerical Rating Scale, while “good response” was defined as an improvement of > 50% compared with baseline.

TAKEAWAY: 

After 4 weeks, 30.9% of patients with axSpA and 29.1% of patients with non-axSpA back pain had any response, and 23.5% and 16.4% of patients with axSpA and non-axSpA back pain, respectively, had a good response.

The proportion of patients showing improvement ranged from 19% to 31% in both groups after 4 weeks of treatment.

No significant differences in response appeared in subgroups of patients based on inflammatory back pain stage or in different axSpA stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“We think that this information has an effect on clinical practice since a response to NSAIDs is an important criterion in the ASAS [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society]/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology treatment recommendations that may influence decisions to initiate treatment with biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs]. Further, a good response to NSAIDs is also an important clinical feature in the ASAS classification criteria,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE: 

The lead author on the study was Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The study was published online on January 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The uneven sex match in the diagnoses and the history of NSAID treatment among patients in both groups were potential limiting factors. The researchers also noted that a similarly conducted study in patients with early disease could have findings that are “much different.”

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored in part by Novartis. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with longstanding back pain symptoms had response rates to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that were no different from patients with non-axSpA back pain of similar duration, according to findings from a prospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

The researchers recruited 233 consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain, including 68 with axSpA and 165 with non-axSpA back pain.

The mean ages of the participants in the axSpA and non-axSpA groups were 42.7 years and 49.3 years, respectively; symptom durations were approximately 15 years in both groups.

Participants were given NSAIDs and “any response” was defined as back pain improvement of more than two units on the Numerical Rating Scale, while “good response” was defined as an improvement of > 50% compared with baseline.

TAKEAWAY: 

After 4 weeks, 30.9% of patients with axSpA and 29.1% of patients with non-axSpA back pain had any response, and 23.5% and 16.4% of patients with axSpA and non-axSpA back pain, respectively, had a good response.

The proportion of patients showing improvement ranged from 19% to 31% in both groups after 4 weeks of treatment.

No significant differences in response appeared in subgroups of patients based on inflammatory back pain stage or in different axSpA stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“We think that this information has an effect on clinical practice since a response to NSAIDs is an important criterion in the ASAS [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society]/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology treatment recommendations that may influence decisions to initiate treatment with biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs]. Further, a good response to NSAIDs is also an important clinical feature in the ASAS classification criteria,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE: 

The lead author on the study was Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The study was published online on January 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The uneven sex match in the diagnoses and the history of NSAID treatment among patients in both groups were potential limiting factors. The researchers also noted that a similarly conducted study in patients with early disease could have findings that are “much different.”

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored in part by Novartis. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Legalization of recreational and medical cannabis is not associated with a reduction in opioid prescriptions or overall opioid overdose mortality, a new study suggested. However, investigators did find that recreational cannabis laws may be tied to a potential reduction in synthetic opioid deaths.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed state-level data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other databases (2006-2020) on the number of opioid prescriptions (per 100,000 persons).
• Prescription opioids included buprenorphine (except products to treat opioid use disorder), codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, propoxyphene, tapentadol, and tramadol.
• Researchers used regression analyses to account for poverty rates and real gross domestic product and a generalized difference-in-differences method that accounted for staggered implementation of cannabis laws.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the full study period, 13 states legalized recreational cannabis and 23 legalized medical cannabis.
• No statistically significant association was found between recreational cannabis laws and opioid prescriptions (3.08 fewer prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17) or overall opioid overdose mortality (3.05 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .24).
• The changes in outcomes associated with medical cannabis laws were larger in magnitude than those for recreational cannabis laws but also not statistically significant (3.54 additional prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17 and 3.09 additional deaths per 100,000; P = .07).
• A potential reduction was found in synthetic opioid deaths associated specifically with states that had recreational cannabis laws (4.9 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .04), but there were no differences in overdose deaths with other opioids.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results contrast with recent studies that suggested that recreational and medical cannabis legalization are associated with reductions in opioid prescriptions and medical cannabis legalization is associated with an increase in opioid mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hai V. Nguyen, PhD, of the School of Pharmacy, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on January 19, 2024, in JAMA Health Forum.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Legalization of recreational and medical cannabis is not associated with a reduction in opioid prescriptions or overall opioid overdose mortality, a new study suggested. However, investigators did find that recreational cannabis laws may be tied to a potential reduction in synthetic opioid deaths.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed state-level data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other databases (2006-2020) on the number of opioid prescriptions (per 100,000 persons).
• Prescription opioids included buprenorphine (except products to treat opioid use disorder), codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, propoxyphene, tapentadol, and tramadol.
• Researchers used regression analyses to account for poverty rates and real gross domestic product and a generalized difference-in-differences method that accounted for staggered implementation of cannabis laws.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the full study period, 13 states legalized recreational cannabis and 23 legalized medical cannabis.
• No statistically significant association was found between recreational cannabis laws and opioid prescriptions (3.08 fewer prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17) or overall opioid overdose mortality (3.05 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .24).
• The changes in outcomes associated with medical cannabis laws were larger in magnitude than those for recreational cannabis laws but also not statistically significant (3.54 additional prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17 and 3.09 additional deaths per 100,000; P = .07).
• A potential reduction was found in synthetic opioid deaths associated specifically with states that had recreational cannabis laws (4.9 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .04), but there were no differences in overdose deaths with other opioids.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results contrast with recent studies that suggested that recreational and medical cannabis legalization are associated with reductions in opioid prescriptions and medical cannabis legalization is associated with an increase in opioid mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hai V. Nguyen, PhD, of the School of Pharmacy, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on January 19, 2024, in JAMA Health Forum.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Legalization of recreational and medical cannabis is not associated with a reduction in opioid prescriptions or overall opioid overdose mortality, a new study suggested. However, investigators did find that recreational cannabis laws may be tied to a potential reduction in synthetic opioid deaths.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed state-level data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other databases (2006-2020) on the number of opioid prescriptions (per 100,000 persons).
• Prescription opioids included buprenorphine (except products to treat opioid use disorder), codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, propoxyphene, tapentadol, and tramadol.
• Researchers used regression analyses to account for poverty rates and real gross domestic product and a generalized difference-in-differences method that accounted for staggered implementation of cannabis laws.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the full study period, 13 states legalized recreational cannabis and 23 legalized medical cannabis.
• No statistically significant association was found between recreational cannabis laws and opioid prescriptions (3.08 fewer prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17) or overall opioid overdose mortality (3.05 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .24).
• The changes in outcomes associated with medical cannabis laws were larger in magnitude than those for recreational cannabis laws but also not statistically significant (3.54 additional prescriptions per 100 persons; P = .17 and 3.09 additional deaths per 100,000; P = .07).
• A potential reduction was found in synthetic opioid deaths associated specifically with states that had recreational cannabis laws (4.9 fewer deaths per 100,000; P = .04), but there were no differences in overdose deaths with other opioids.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results contrast with recent studies that suggested that recreational and medical cannabis legalization are associated with reductions in opioid prescriptions and medical cannabis legalization is associated with an increase in opioid mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hai V. Nguyen, PhD, of the School of Pharmacy, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Canada, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on January 19, 2024, in JAMA Health Forum.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Neha Pathak, MD: Hello. Today, we’re talking to Dr. Daniel Clauw, a professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who is running a major trial on treatments for chronic back pain. We’re talking today about managing back pain in the post-opioid world. Thank you so much, Dr. Clauw, for taking the time to be our resident pain consultant today. Managing chronic pain can lead to a large amount of burnout and helplessness in the clinic setting. That’s the reality with some of the modalities that patients are requesting; there is still confusion about what is optimal for a particular type of patient, this feeling that we’re not really helping people get better, and whenever patients come in, that’s always still their chief complaint.

How would you advise providers to think about that and to settle into their role as communicators about better strategies without the burnout?

Daniel Clauw, MD: The first thing is to broaden the number of other providers that you get involved in these individuals’ care as the evidence base for all of these nonpharmacologic therapies being effective in chronic pain increases and increases. As third-party payers begin to reimburse for more and more of these therapies, it’s really difficult to manage chronic pain patients if you’re trying to do it alone on an island.

If you can, identify the good physical therapists in your community that are going to really work with people to give them an exercise program that they can use at home; find a pain psychologist that can offer some cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia and some CBT for pain; and in the subset of patients with trauma, give them the emotional awareness of the neural reprocessing therapy for that specific subset.

As you start to identify more and more of these nonpharmacologic therapies that you want your patients to try, each of those has a set of providers and they can be incredibly helpful so that you, as the primary care provider (PCP), don’t really feel overwhelmed that you’re it, that you’re the only one.

Many of these individuals have more time to spend, and they have more one-on-one in-person time than you do as a primary care physician in the current healthcare system. Many of those providers have become really good at doing amateur CBT, goal-setting, and some of the other things that you need to do when you manage chronic pain patients. Try to find that other group of people that you can send your patients to that are going to be offering some of these nonpharmacologic therapies, and they’ll really help you manage these individuals.

Dr. Pathak: I think a couple of things come up for me. One is that we have to maybe broaden thinking about pain management, not only as multimodal strategies but also as multidisciplinary strategies. To your point, I think that’s really important. I also worry and wonder about health equity concerns, because just as overburdened as many PCPs are, we’re seeing it’s very difficult to get into physical therapy or to get into a setting where you’d be able to receive CBT for your pain. Any thoughts on those types of considerations?

Dr. Clauw: That’s a huge problem. Our group and many other groups in the pain space are developing websites, smartphone apps, and things like that to try to get some of these things directly to individuals with pain, not only for the reasons that you stated but also so that persons with pain don’t have to become patients. Our healthcare systems often make pain worse rather than better.

There were some great articles in The Lancet about 5 years ago talking about low back pain and that in different countries, the healthcare systems, for different reasons, have a tendency to actually make low back pain worse because they do too much surgery, immobilize people, or things like that rather than just not make them better. I think we’ve overmedicalized chronic pain in some settings, and much of what we’re trying to lead people to are things that are parts of wellness programs. The NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health director talks about whole person health often.

I think that these interdisciplinary, integrative approaches are what we have to be using for chronic pain patients. I tell pain patients that, among acupuncture, acupressure, mindfulness, five different forms of CBT, yoga, and tai chi, I don’t know which of those is going to work, but I know that about 1 in 3 individuals that tries each of those therapies gets a benefit. What I really should be doing most is incentivizing people and motivating people to keep trying some of those nonpharmacologic approaches that they haven’t yet tried, because when they find one that works for them, then they will integrate it into their day-to-day life.

The other trick I would use for primary care physicians or anyone managing chronic pain patients is, don’t try to incentivize a pain patient to go try a new nonpharmacologic therapy or start an exercise program because you want their pain score to go from a 6 to a 3. Incentivize them by asking them, what are two or three things that you’re not able to do now because you have chronic pain that you’d really like to be able to do?

You’d like to play nine holes of golf; you’d like to be able to hug your grandchild; or you’d like to be able to do something else. Use those functional goals that are patient0driven to motivate your patients to do these things, because that will work much better. Again, any of us are inherently more likely to take the time and the effort to do some of these nonpharmacologic therapies if it’s for a reason that internally motivates us.

Dr. Pathak: I think that’s great. I’m very privileged to work within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. I think that there’s been a huge shift within VA healthcare to provide these ancillary services, whether it’s yoga, tai chi, or acupuncture, as an adjunct to the pain management strategy.

Also, what comes up for me, as you’re saying, is grounding the point that instead of relying on a pain score — which can be objective and different from patient to patient and even within a patient — we should choose a smart goal that is almost more objective when it’s functional. Your goal is to walk two blocks to the mailbox. Can we achieve that as part of your pain control strategy?

I so appreciate your taking the time to be our pain consultant today. I really appreciate our discussion, and I’d like to hand it over to you for any final thoughts.

Dr. Clauw: I’d add that when you’re seeing chronic pain patients, many of them are going to have comorbid sleep problems. They’re going to have comorbid problems with fatigue and memory problems, especially the central nervous system–driven forms of pain that we now call nociplastic pain. Look at those as therapeutic targets.

If you’re befuddled because you’ve tried many different things for pain in this individual you’ve been seeing for a while, focus on their sleep and focus on getting them more active. Don’t use the word exercise — because that scares chronic pain patients — but focus on getting them more active.

There are many different tactics and strategies that you can use to motivate the patients to try some of these new nonpharmacologic approaches as the evidence base continues to increase.

Dr. Pathak: Thank you so much, again, to Dr. Clauw for joining us and being our pain consultant, really helping us to think about managing back pain in the postopioid world.
 

Dr. Pathak is Chief Physician Editor, Health and Lifestyle Medicine, WebMD. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Clauw is Director, Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He disclosed ties with Tonix and Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Neha Pathak, MD: Hello. Today, we’re talking to Dr. Daniel Clauw, a professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who is running a major trial on treatments for chronic back pain. We’re talking today about managing back pain in the post-opioid world. Thank you so much, Dr. Clauw, for taking the time to be our resident pain consultant today. Managing chronic pain can lead to a large amount of burnout and helplessness in the clinic setting. That’s the reality with some of the modalities that patients are requesting; there is still confusion about what is optimal for a particular type of patient, this feeling that we’re not really helping people get better, and whenever patients come in, that’s always still their chief complaint.

How would you advise providers to think about that and to settle into their role as communicators about better strategies without the burnout?

Daniel Clauw, MD: The first thing is to broaden the number of other providers that you get involved in these individuals’ care as the evidence base for all of these nonpharmacologic therapies being effective in chronic pain increases and increases. As third-party payers begin to reimburse for more and more of these therapies, it’s really difficult to manage chronic pain patients if you’re trying to do it alone on an island.

If you can, identify the good physical therapists in your community that are going to really work with people to give them an exercise program that they can use at home; find a pain psychologist that can offer some cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia and some CBT for pain; and in the subset of patients with trauma, give them the emotional awareness of the neural reprocessing therapy for that specific subset.

As you start to identify more and more of these nonpharmacologic therapies that you want your patients to try, each of those has a set of providers and they can be incredibly helpful so that you, as the primary care provider (PCP), don’t really feel overwhelmed that you’re it, that you’re the only one.

Many of these individuals have more time to spend, and they have more one-on-one in-person time than you do as a primary care physician in the current healthcare system. Many of those providers have become really good at doing amateur CBT, goal-setting, and some of the other things that you need to do when you manage chronic pain patients. Try to find that other group of people that you can send your patients to that are going to be offering some of these nonpharmacologic therapies, and they’ll really help you manage these individuals.

Dr. Pathak: I think a couple of things come up for me. One is that we have to maybe broaden thinking about pain management, not only as multimodal strategies but also as multidisciplinary strategies. To your point, I think that’s really important. I also worry and wonder about health equity concerns, because just as overburdened as many PCPs are, we’re seeing it’s very difficult to get into physical therapy or to get into a setting where you’d be able to receive CBT for your pain. Any thoughts on those types of considerations?

Dr. Clauw: That’s a huge problem. Our group and many other groups in the pain space are developing websites, smartphone apps, and things like that to try to get some of these things directly to individuals with pain, not only for the reasons that you stated but also so that persons with pain don’t have to become patients. Our healthcare systems often make pain worse rather than better.

There were some great articles in The Lancet about 5 years ago talking about low back pain and that in different countries, the healthcare systems, for different reasons, have a tendency to actually make low back pain worse because they do too much surgery, immobilize people, or things like that rather than just not make them better. I think we’ve overmedicalized chronic pain in some settings, and much of what we’re trying to lead people to are things that are parts of wellness programs. The NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health director talks about whole person health often.

I think that these interdisciplinary, integrative approaches are what we have to be using for chronic pain patients. I tell pain patients that, among acupuncture, acupressure, mindfulness, five different forms of CBT, yoga, and tai chi, I don’t know which of those is going to work, but I know that about 1 in 3 individuals that tries each of those therapies gets a benefit. What I really should be doing most is incentivizing people and motivating people to keep trying some of those nonpharmacologic approaches that they haven’t yet tried, because when they find one that works for them, then they will integrate it into their day-to-day life.

The other trick I would use for primary care physicians or anyone managing chronic pain patients is, don’t try to incentivize a pain patient to go try a new nonpharmacologic therapy or start an exercise program because you want their pain score to go from a 6 to a 3. Incentivize them by asking them, what are two or three things that you’re not able to do now because you have chronic pain that you’d really like to be able to do?

You’d like to play nine holes of golf; you’d like to be able to hug your grandchild; or you’d like to be able to do something else. Use those functional goals that are patient0driven to motivate your patients to do these things, because that will work much better. Again, any of us are inherently more likely to take the time and the effort to do some of these nonpharmacologic therapies if it’s for a reason that internally motivates us.

Dr. Pathak: I think that’s great. I’m very privileged to work within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. I think that there’s been a huge shift within VA healthcare to provide these ancillary services, whether it’s yoga, tai chi, or acupuncture, as an adjunct to the pain management strategy.

Also, what comes up for me, as you’re saying, is grounding the point that instead of relying on a pain score — which can be objective and different from patient to patient and even within a patient — we should choose a smart goal that is almost more objective when it’s functional. Your goal is to walk two blocks to the mailbox. Can we achieve that as part of your pain control strategy?

I so appreciate your taking the time to be our pain consultant today. I really appreciate our discussion, and I’d like to hand it over to you for any final thoughts.

Dr. Clauw: I’d add that when you’re seeing chronic pain patients, many of them are going to have comorbid sleep problems. They’re going to have comorbid problems with fatigue and memory problems, especially the central nervous system–driven forms of pain that we now call nociplastic pain. Look at those as therapeutic targets.

If you’re befuddled because you’ve tried many different things for pain in this individual you’ve been seeing for a while, focus on their sleep and focus on getting them more active. Don’t use the word exercise — because that scares chronic pain patients — but focus on getting them more active.

There are many different tactics and strategies that you can use to motivate the patients to try some of these new nonpharmacologic approaches as the evidence base continues to increase.

Dr. Pathak: Thank you so much, again, to Dr. Clauw for joining us and being our pain consultant, really helping us to think about managing back pain in the postopioid world.
 

Dr. Pathak is Chief Physician Editor, Health and Lifestyle Medicine, WebMD. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Clauw is Director, Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He disclosed ties with Tonix and Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Neha Pathak, MD: Hello. Today, we’re talking to Dr. Daniel Clauw, a professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who is running a major trial on treatments for chronic back pain. We’re talking today about managing back pain in the post-opioid world. Thank you so much, Dr. Clauw, for taking the time to be our resident pain consultant today. Managing chronic pain can lead to a large amount of burnout and helplessness in the clinic setting. That’s the reality with some of the modalities that patients are requesting; there is still confusion about what is optimal for a particular type of patient, this feeling that we’re not really helping people get better, and whenever patients come in, that’s always still their chief complaint.

How would you advise providers to think about that and to settle into their role as communicators about better strategies without the burnout?

Daniel Clauw, MD: The first thing is to broaden the number of other providers that you get involved in these individuals’ care as the evidence base for all of these nonpharmacologic therapies being effective in chronic pain increases and increases. As third-party payers begin to reimburse for more and more of these therapies, it’s really difficult to manage chronic pain patients if you’re trying to do it alone on an island.

If you can, identify the good physical therapists in your community that are going to really work with people to give them an exercise program that they can use at home; find a pain psychologist that can offer some cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia and some CBT for pain; and in the subset of patients with trauma, give them the emotional awareness of the neural reprocessing therapy for that specific subset.

As you start to identify more and more of these nonpharmacologic therapies that you want your patients to try, each of those has a set of providers and they can be incredibly helpful so that you, as the primary care provider (PCP), don’t really feel overwhelmed that you’re it, that you’re the only one.

Many of these individuals have more time to spend, and they have more one-on-one in-person time than you do as a primary care physician in the current healthcare system. Many of those providers have become really good at doing amateur CBT, goal-setting, and some of the other things that you need to do when you manage chronic pain patients. Try to find that other group of people that you can send your patients to that are going to be offering some of these nonpharmacologic therapies, and they’ll really help you manage these individuals.

Dr. Pathak: I think a couple of things come up for me. One is that we have to maybe broaden thinking about pain management, not only as multimodal strategies but also as multidisciplinary strategies. To your point, I think that’s really important. I also worry and wonder about health equity concerns, because just as overburdened as many PCPs are, we’re seeing it’s very difficult to get into physical therapy or to get into a setting where you’d be able to receive CBT for your pain. Any thoughts on those types of considerations?

Dr. Clauw: That’s a huge problem. Our group and many other groups in the pain space are developing websites, smartphone apps, and things like that to try to get some of these things directly to individuals with pain, not only for the reasons that you stated but also so that persons with pain don’t have to become patients. Our healthcare systems often make pain worse rather than better.

There were some great articles in The Lancet about 5 years ago talking about low back pain and that in different countries, the healthcare systems, for different reasons, have a tendency to actually make low back pain worse because they do too much surgery, immobilize people, or things like that rather than just not make them better. I think we’ve overmedicalized chronic pain in some settings, and much of what we’re trying to lead people to are things that are parts of wellness programs. The NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health director talks about whole person health often.

I think that these interdisciplinary, integrative approaches are what we have to be using for chronic pain patients. I tell pain patients that, among acupuncture, acupressure, mindfulness, five different forms of CBT, yoga, and tai chi, I don’t know which of those is going to work, but I know that about 1 in 3 individuals that tries each of those therapies gets a benefit. What I really should be doing most is incentivizing people and motivating people to keep trying some of those nonpharmacologic approaches that they haven’t yet tried, because when they find one that works for them, then they will integrate it into their day-to-day life.

The other trick I would use for primary care physicians or anyone managing chronic pain patients is, don’t try to incentivize a pain patient to go try a new nonpharmacologic therapy or start an exercise program because you want their pain score to go from a 6 to a 3. Incentivize them by asking them, what are two or three things that you’re not able to do now because you have chronic pain that you’d really like to be able to do?

You’d like to play nine holes of golf; you’d like to be able to hug your grandchild; or you’d like to be able to do something else. Use those functional goals that are patient0driven to motivate your patients to do these things, because that will work much better. Again, any of us are inherently more likely to take the time and the effort to do some of these nonpharmacologic therapies if it’s for a reason that internally motivates us.

Dr. Pathak: I think that’s great. I’m very privileged to work within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. I think that there’s been a huge shift within VA healthcare to provide these ancillary services, whether it’s yoga, tai chi, or acupuncture, as an adjunct to the pain management strategy.

Also, what comes up for me, as you’re saying, is grounding the point that instead of relying on a pain score — which can be objective and different from patient to patient and even within a patient — we should choose a smart goal that is almost more objective when it’s functional. Your goal is to walk two blocks to the mailbox. Can we achieve that as part of your pain control strategy?

I so appreciate your taking the time to be our pain consultant today. I really appreciate our discussion, and I’d like to hand it over to you for any final thoughts.

Dr. Clauw: I’d add that when you’re seeing chronic pain patients, many of them are going to have comorbid sleep problems. They’re going to have comorbid problems with fatigue and memory problems, especially the central nervous system–driven forms of pain that we now call nociplastic pain. Look at those as therapeutic targets.

If you’re befuddled because you’ve tried many different things for pain in this individual you’ve been seeing for a while, focus on their sleep and focus on getting them more active. Don’t use the word exercise — because that scares chronic pain patients — but focus on getting them more active.

There are many different tactics and strategies that you can use to motivate the patients to try some of these new nonpharmacologic approaches as the evidence base continues to increase.

Dr. Pathak: Thank you so much, again, to Dr. Clauw for joining us and being our pain consultant, really helping us to think about managing back pain in the postopioid world.
 

Dr. Pathak is Chief Physician Editor, Health and Lifestyle Medicine, WebMD. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Clauw is Director, Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He disclosed ties with Tonix and Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with back pain that has persisted for less than 12 weeks have a high probability of substantial pain reduction over time, but patients with back pain that has persisted for 12 or more weeks have a lower chance of improvement, new data suggest.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 95 studies, pain score decreased by 35 points on a 100-point scale from baseline to 52 weeks among patients with acute pain (ie, pain lasting for less than 6 weeks). Patients with persistent pain (ie, pain lasting for more than 12 weeks but less than 52 weeks) had smaller improvements at 52 weeks, however. 

“The outcomes for acute pain are better than we thought they were,” study author Lorimer Moseley, AO, DSc, PhD, professor of clinical neurosciences and chair of physiotherapy at the University of South Australia in Adelaide, told this news organization. 

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. 

Good Prognoses 

The current analysis represents an update to and advance on a 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, said Moseley. That study found that patients with subacute low back pain and those with persistent low back pain had similar decreases in pain over 6 weeks. The previous analysis “may have resulted in improved outcomes in the persistent group,” the investigators wrote in the current analysis.

For the current study, the researchers examined 95 studies to understand the clinical course of acute, subacute (ie, lasting for 6 to less than 12 weeks), and persistent low back pain. They excluded retrospective cohorts and interventional studies, as well as studies of patients with low back pain for more than 12 months. The researchers also conducted meta-analyses on aggregate data, where possible, using pain and disability outcome data. 

In patients with acute pain, the mean pain score improved from 56 at baseline to 26 at 6 weeks and 21 at 52 weeks. Patients with subacute pain had a mean pain score of 63 at baseline that improved to 29 at 6 weeks and was maintained at 31 at 52 weeks. Patients with persistent pain had a mean pain score of 56 at baseline that improved to 48 at six weeks and 40 at 52 weeks.

“I don’t think we need to do any more studies to clarify recovery from acute back pain,” said Dr. Moseley. “For subacute back pain, I think there is a moderate to high level of certainty, so the prognosis is pretty good there. The bad news is that the data suggest that if someone’s got back pain 3 months after onset, the likelihood of recovery is much less, but those data are the ones we can’t be certain of on the basis of this meta-analysis.”

Dr. Moseley noted that the current analysis is not highly detailed, because individual patient data are absent. This is “the biggest limitation from a methodological perspective,” he said. “Individual patient analysis is a lot more powerful.”

Comprehensive Literature Search 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Borenstein, MD, clinical professor of rheumatology at the George Washington University Medical Center and partner at Arthritis and Rheumatism Associates in Washington, DC, described the literature search as comprehensive. Dr. Borenstein did not participate in the study. The assessment of low back pain as either short-lived or lasting is worth investigating, he added, given that low back pain impairs a patient’s function and carries a hefty price tag at a societal level.

The study results suggest “that people with acute low back pain do pretty well, and people with subacute low back pain will do less well but still have a chance of healing,” said Dr. Borenstein. “People who have chronic low back pain do not do as well, and they have some increase in disability.” It would be important to develop ways to identify patients whose low back pain will persist beyond 3 months, as well as ways to identify the criteria or characteristics that might prevent those patients from having prolonged difficulties and persistent low back pain, he added.

Dr. Borenstein noted that the authors failed to mention specific approaches that could decrease progression from subacute to persistent low back pain. “They really don’t point anyone in a direction to what would make a difference,” he said. “It would have really improved the impact of the paper if they had seen anything along the way in their review of these articles that might have suggested how someone or a group might have been able to impact this progression.” 

The study was funded by supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator Grant to Dr. Moseley. Dr. Moseley and Dr. Borenstein reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with back pain that has persisted for less than 12 weeks have a high probability of substantial pain reduction over time, but patients with back pain that has persisted for 12 or more weeks have a lower chance of improvement, new data suggest.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 95 studies, pain score decreased by 35 points on a 100-point scale from baseline to 52 weeks among patients with acute pain (ie, pain lasting for less than 6 weeks). Patients with persistent pain (ie, pain lasting for more than 12 weeks but less than 52 weeks) had smaller improvements at 52 weeks, however. 

“The outcomes for acute pain are better than we thought they were,” study author Lorimer Moseley, AO, DSc, PhD, professor of clinical neurosciences and chair of physiotherapy at the University of South Australia in Adelaide, told this news organization. 

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. 

Good Prognoses 

The current analysis represents an update to and advance on a 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, said Moseley. That study found that patients with subacute low back pain and those with persistent low back pain had similar decreases in pain over 6 weeks. The previous analysis “may have resulted in improved outcomes in the persistent group,” the investigators wrote in the current analysis.

For the current study, the researchers examined 95 studies to understand the clinical course of acute, subacute (ie, lasting for 6 to less than 12 weeks), and persistent low back pain. They excluded retrospective cohorts and interventional studies, as well as studies of patients with low back pain for more than 12 months. The researchers also conducted meta-analyses on aggregate data, where possible, using pain and disability outcome data. 

In patients with acute pain, the mean pain score improved from 56 at baseline to 26 at 6 weeks and 21 at 52 weeks. Patients with subacute pain had a mean pain score of 63 at baseline that improved to 29 at 6 weeks and was maintained at 31 at 52 weeks. Patients with persistent pain had a mean pain score of 56 at baseline that improved to 48 at six weeks and 40 at 52 weeks.

“I don’t think we need to do any more studies to clarify recovery from acute back pain,” said Dr. Moseley. “For subacute back pain, I think there is a moderate to high level of certainty, so the prognosis is pretty good there. The bad news is that the data suggest that if someone’s got back pain 3 months after onset, the likelihood of recovery is much less, but those data are the ones we can’t be certain of on the basis of this meta-analysis.”

Dr. Moseley noted that the current analysis is not highly detailed, because individual patient data are absent. This is “the biggest limitation from a methodological perspective,” he said. “Individual patient analysis is a lot more powerful.”

Comprehensive Literature Search 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Borenstein, MD, clinical professor of rheumatology at the George Washington University Medical Center and partner at Arthritis and Rheumatism Associates in Washington, DC, described the literature search as comprehensive. Dr. Borenstein did not participate in the study. The assessment of low back pain as either short-lived or lasting is worth investigating, he added, given that low back pain impairs a patient’s function and carries a hefty price tag at a societal level.

The study results suggest “that people with acute low back pain do pretty well, and people with subacute low back pain will do less well but still have a chance of healing,” said Dr. Borenstein. “People who have chronic low back pain do not do as well, and they have some increase in disability.” It would be important to develop ways to identify patients whose low back pain will persist beyond 3 months, as well as ways to identify the criteria or characteristics that might prevent those patients from having prolonged difficulties and persistent low back pain, he added.

Dr. Borenstein noted that the authors failed to mention specific approaches that could decrease progression from subacute to persistent low back pain. “They really don’t point anyone in a direction to what would make a difference,” he said. “It would have really improved the impact of the paper if they had seen anything along the way in their review of these articles that might have suggested how someone or a group might have been able to impact this progression.” 

The study was funded by supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator Grant to Dr. Moseley. Dr. Moseley and Dr. Borenstein reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with back pain that has persisted for less than 12 weeks have a high probability of substantial pain reduction over time, but patients with back pain that has persisted for 12 or more weeks have a lower chance of improvement, new data suggest.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 95 studies, pain score decreased by 35 points on a 100-point scale from baseline to 52 weeks among patients with acute pain (ie, pain lasting for less than 6 weeks). Patients with persistent pain (ie, pain lasting for more than 12 weeks but less than 52 weeks) had smaller improvements at 52 weeks, however. 

“The outcomes for acute pain are better than we thought they were,” study author Lorimer Moseley, AO, DSc, PhD, professor of clinical neurosciences and chair of physiotherapy at the University of South Australia in Adelaide, told this news organization. 

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. 

Good Prognoses 

The current analysis represents an update to and advance on a 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, said Moseley. That study found that patients with subacute low back pain and those with persistent low back pain had similar decreases in pain over 6 weeks. The previous analysis “may have resulted in improved outcomes in the persistent group,” the investigators wrote in the current analysis.

For the current study, the researchers examined 95 studies to understand the clinical course of acute, subacute (ie, lasting for 6 to less than 12 weeks), and persistent low back pain. They excluded retrospective cohorts and interventional studies, as well as studies of patients with low back pain for more than 12 months. The researchers also conducted meta-analyses on aggregate data, where possible, using pain and disability outcome data. 

In patients with acute pain, the mean pain score improved from 56 at baseline to 26 at 6 weeks and 21 at 52 weeks. Patients with subacute pain had a mean pain score of 63 at baseline that improved to 29 at 6 weeks and was maintained at 31 at 52 weeks. Patients with persistent pain had a mean pain score of 56 at baseline that improved to 48 at six weeks and 40 at 52 weeks.

“I don’t think we need to do any more studies to clarify recovery from acute back pain,” said Dr. Moseley. “For subacute back pain, I think there is a moderate to high level of certainty, so the prognosis is pretty good there. The bad news is that the data suggest that if someone’s got back pain 3 months after onset, the likelihood of recovery is much less, but those data are the ones we can’t be certain of on the basis of this meta-analysis.”

Dr. Moseley noted that the current analysis is not highly detailed, because individual patient data are absent. This is “the biggest limitation from a methodological perspective,” he said. “Individual patient analysis is a lot more powerful.”

Comprehensive Literature Search 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Borenstein, MD, clinical professor of rheumatology at the George Washington University Medical Center and partner at Arthritis and Rheumatism Associates in Washington, DC, described the literature search as comprehensive. Dr. Borenstein did not participate in the study. The assessment of low back pain as either short-lived or lasting is worth investigating, he added, given that low back pain impairs a patient’s function and carries a hefty price tag at a societal level.

The study results suggest “that people with acute low back pain do pretty well, and people with subacute low back pain will do less well but still have a chance of healing,” said Dr. Borenstein. “People who have chronic low back pain do not do as well, and they have some increase in disability.” It would be important to develop ways to identify patients whose low back pain will persist beyond 3 months, as well as ways to identify the criteria or characteristics that might prevent those patients from having prolonged difficulties and persistent low back pain, he added.

Dr. Borenstein noted that the authors failed to mention specific approaches that could decrease progression from subacute to persistent low back pain. “They really don’t point anyone in a direction to what would make a difference,” he said. “It would have really improved the impact of the paper if they had seen anything along the way in their review of these articles that might have suggested how someone or a group might have been able to impact this progression.” 

The study was funded by supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator Grant to Dr. Moseley. Dr. Moseley and Dr. Borenstein reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data link smoking and heavy drinking with an increased risk for diverticulitis, with the greatest risk seen in adults who smoke and consume two or more drinks daily.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers studied 84,232 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II who were 39-52 years old and without known diverticulitis at baseline in 2003. 
• In 2015 and 2017, participants were asked via questionnaire whether they had been diagnosed with diverticulitis requiring antibiotic therapy or hospitalization. Diverticulitis was defined as a computed tomography scan or pathology report of diverticulitis or a provider diagnosis with a clinical presentation consistent with diverticulitis. 
• Smoking was assessed every 2 years and alcohol consumption every 4 years using standard questionnaires. 
• Consistent with prior studies on risk factors for diverticulitis, multivariable models adjusted for age, menopausal hormone status and hormone use, body mass index, physical activity, aspirin/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, intake of fiber and red/processed meat, and other factors were used. 

TAKEAWAY:

• During more than 1 million person-years of follow-up, 3018 incident cases of diverticulitis were identified. 
• Both current and past smoking were associated with increased risk for diverticulitis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2) compared with never smoking, although no dose-response relationship was evident. In an analysis restricted to participants who had surgery for diverticulitis, the magnitude of the association was strengthened (HR, 1.48 for current smokers and 1.46 for past smokers vs never smokers). 
• Consumption of ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol (2+ drinks/day) was associated with an increased risk for incident diverticulitis (HR, 1.26) compared with not drinking. 
• A joint analysis of smoking and alcohol found that individuals who ever smoked and consumed ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol were at the highest risk for diverticulitis (multivariate HR, 1.53) compared with individuals who never smoked and reported no alcohol use. 

IN PRACTICE:

“As there are currently no medical means to prevent diverticulitis other than dietary and lifestyle interventions, counseling patients about the avoidance of smoking and alcohol may help lower the risk for developing diverticulitis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Sara Gunby, MD, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Diverticulitis diagnoses were self-reported, although a review of a subset of medical records confirmed the diagnosis in more than 90% of cases establishing the validity of self-report in this population. The study was limited to female nurses, so it is possible the findings may not be generalizable to men or other populations. Residual confounding may have impacted the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data link smoking and heavy drinking with an increased risk for diverticulitis, with the greatest risk seen in adults who smoke and consume two or more drinks daily.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers studied 84,232 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II who were 39-52 years old and without known diverticulitis at baseline in 2003. 
• In 2015 and 2017, participants were asked via questionnaire whether they had been diagnosed with diverticulitis requiring antibiotic therapy or hospitalization. Diverticulitis was defined as a computed tomography scan or pathology report of diverticulitis or a provider diagnosis with a clinical presentation consistent with diverticulitis. 
• Smoking was assessed every 2 years and alcohol consumption every 4 years using standard questionnaires. 
• Consistent with prior studies on risk factors for diverticulitis, multivariable models adjusted for age, menopausal hormone status and hormone use, body mass index, physical activity, aspirin/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, intake of fiber and red/processed meat, and other factors were used. 

TAKEAWAY:

• During more than 1 million person-years of follow-up, 3018 incident cases of diverticulitis were identified. 
• Both current and past smoking were associated with increased risk for diverticulitis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2) compared with never smoking, although no dose-response relationship was evident. In an analysis restricted to participants who had surgery for diverticulitis, the magnitude of the association was strengthened (HR, 1.48 for current smokers and 1.46 for past smokers vs never smokers). 
• Consumption of ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol (2+ drinks/day) was associated with an increased risk for incident diverticulitis (HR, 1.26) compared with not drinking. 
• A joint analysis of smoking and alcohol found that individuals who ever smoked and consumed ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol were at the highest risk for diverticulitis (multivariate HR, 1.53) compared with individuals who never smoked and reported no alcohol use. 

IN PRACTICE:

“As there are currently no medical means to prevent diverticulitis other than dietary and lifestyle interventions, counseling patients about the avoidance of smoking and alcohol may help lower the risk for developing diverticulitis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Sara Gunby, MD, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Diverticulitis diagnoses were self-reported, although a review of a subset of medical records confirmed the diagnosis in more than 90% of cases establishing the validity of self-report in this population. The study was limited to female nurses, so it is possible the findings may not be generalizable to men or other populations. Residual confounding may have impacted the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data link smoking and heavy drinking with an increased risk for diverticulitis, with the greatest risk seen in adults who smoke and consume two or more drinks daily.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers studied 84,232 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II who were 39-52 years old and without known diverticulitis at baseline in 2003. 
• In 2015 and 2017, participants were asked via questionnaire whether they had been diagnosed with diverticulitis requiring antibiotic therapy or hospitalization. Diverticulitis was defined as a computed tomography scan or pathology report of diverticulitis or a provider diagnosis with a clinical presentation consistent with diverticulitis. 
• Smoking was assessed every 2 years and alcohol consumption every 4 years using standard questionnaires. 
• Consistent with prior studies on risk factors for diverticulitis, multivariable models adjusted for age, menopausal hormone status and hormone use, body mass index, physical activity, aspirin/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, intake of fiber and red/processed meat, and other factors were used. 

TAKEAWAY:

• During more than 1 million person-years of follow-up, 3018 incident cases of diverticulitis were identified. 
• Both current and past smoking were associated with increased risk for diverticulitis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2) compared with never smoking, although no dose-response relationship was evident. In an analysis restricted to participants who had surgery for diverticulitis, the magnitude of the association was strengthened (HR, 1.48 for current smokers and 1.46 for past smokers vs never smokers). 
• Consumption of ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol (2+ drinks/day) was associated with an increased risk for incident diverticulitis (HR, 1.26) compared with not drinking. 
• A joint analysis of smoking and alcohol found that individuals who ever smoked and consumed ≥ 30 g/d of alcohol were at the highest risk for diverticulitis (multivariate HR, 1.53) compared with individuals who never smoked and reported no alcohol use. 

IN PRACTICE:

“As there are currently no medical means to prevent diverticulitis other than dietary and lifestyle interventions, counseling patients about the avoidance of smoking and alcohol may help lower the risk for developing diverticulitis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Sara Gunby, MD, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Diverticulitis diagnoses were self-reported, although a review of a subset of medical records confirmed the diagnosis in more than 90% of cases establishing the validity of self-report in this population. The study was limited to female nurses, so it is possible the findings may not be generalizable to men or other populations. Residual confounding may have impacted the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) have overlapping neurologic symptoms — particularly profound fatigue. The similarity between these two conditions has led to the question of whether they are indeed distinct central nervous system (CNS) entities, or whether they exist along a spectrum and are actually two different manifestations of the same disease process.

A new study utilized a novel methodology — unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics — to investigate this question by analyzing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a group of patients with ME/CFS and another group of patients diagnosed with both ME/CFS and FM.

Close to 2,100 proteins were identified, of which nearly 1,800 were common to both conditions.

“ME/CFS and fibromyalgia do not appear to be distinct entities, with respect to their cerebrospinal fluid proteins,” lead author Steven Schutzer, MD, professor of medicine, Rutgers New Jersey School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“Work is underway to solve the multiple mysteries of ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, and other neurologic-associated diseases,” he continued. “We have further affirmed that we have a precise objective discovery tool in our hands. Collectively studying multiple diseases brings clarity to each individual disease.”

The study was published in the December 2023 issue of Annals of Medicine.
 

Cutting-Edge Technology

“ME/CFS is characterized by disabling fatigue, and FM is an illness characterized by body-wide pain,” Dr. Schutzer said. These “medically unexplained” illnesses often coexist by current definitions, and the overlap between them has suggested that they may be part of the “same illness spectrum.”

But co-investigator Benjamin Natelson, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Pain and Fatigue Study Center, Mount Sinai, New York, and others found in previous research that there are distinct differences between the conditions, raising the possibility that there may be different pathophysiological processes.

“The physicians and scientists on our team have had longstanding interest in studying neurologic diseases with cutting-edge tools such as mass spectrometry applied to CSF,” Dr. Schutzer said. “We have had success using this message to distinguish diseases such as ME/CFS from post-treatment Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, and healthy normal people.”

Dr. Schutzer explained that Dr. Natelson had acquired CSF samples from “well-characterized [ME/CFS] patients and controls.”

Since the cause of ME/CFS is “unknown,” it seemed “ripe to investigate it further with the discovery tool of mass spectrometry” by harnessing the “most advanced equipment in the country at the pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is part of the US Department of Energy.”

Dr. Schutzer noted that it was the “merger of different clinical and laboratory expertise” that enabled them to address whether ME/CFS and FM are two distinct disease processes.

The choice of analyzing CSF is that it’s the fluid closest to the brain, he added. “A lot of people have studied ME/CFS peripherally because they don’t have access to spinal fluid or it’s easier to look peripherally in the blood, but that doesn’t mean that the blood is where the real ‘action’ is occurring.”

The researchers compared the CSF of 15 patients with ME/CFS only to 15 patients with ME/CFS+FM using mass spectrometry-based proteomics, which they had employed in previous research to see whether ME/CFS was distinct from persistent neurologic Lyme disease syndrome.

This technology has become the “method of choice and discovery tool to rapidly uncover protein biomarkers that can distinguish one disease from another,” the authors stated.

In particular, in unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics, the researchers do not have to know in advance what’s in a sample before studying it, Dr. Schutzer explained.
 

Shared Pathophysiology?

Both groups of patients were of similar age (41.3 ± 9.4 years and 40.1 ± 11.0 years, respectively), with no differences in gender or rates of current comorbid psychiatric diagnoses between the groups.

The researchers quantified a total of 2,083 proteins, including 1,789 that were specifically quantified in all of the CSF samples, regardless of the presence or absence of FM.

Several analyses (including an ANOVA analysis with adjusted P values, a Random Forest machine learning approach that looked at relative protein abundance changes between those with ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM, and unsupervised hierarchical clustering analyses) did not find distinguishing differences between the groups.

“The sum of these results does not support the hypothesis that ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM are distinct entities, as currently defined,” the authors stated.

They noted that both conditions are “medically unexplained,” with core symptoms of pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and cognitive difficulty. The fact that these two syndromes coexist so often has led to the assumption that the “similarities between them outweigh the differences,” they wrote.

They pointed to some differences between the conditions, including an increase in substance P in the CSF of FM patients, but not in ME/CFS patients reported by others. There are also some immunological, physiological and genetic differences.

But if the conclusion that the two illnesses may share a similar pathophysiological basis is supported by other research that includes FM-only patients as comparators to those with ME/CFS, “this would support the notion that the two illnesses fall along a common illness spectrum and may be approached as a single entity — with implications for both diagnosis and the development of new treatment approaches,” they concluded.
 

‘Noncontributory’ Findings

Commenting on the research, Robert G. Lahita, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Autoimmune and Rheumatic Diseases, St. Joseph Health, Wayne, New Jersey, stated that he does not regard these diseases as neurologic but rather as rheumatologic.

“Most neurologists don’t see these diseases, but as a rheumatologist, I see them every day,” said Dr. Lahita, professor of medicine at Hackensack (New Jersey) Meridian School of Medicine and a clinical professor of medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, New Brunswick. “ME/CFS isn’t as common in my practice, but we do deal with many post-COVID patients who are afflicted mostly with ME/CFS.”

He noted that an important reason for fatigue in FM is that patients generally don’t sleep, or their sleep is disrupted. This is different from the cause of fatigue in ME/CFS.

In addition, the small sample size and the lack of difference between males and females were both limitations of the current study, said Dr. Lahita, who was not involved in this research. “We know that FM disproportionately affects women — in my practice, for example, over 95% of the patients with FM are female — while ME/CFS affects both genders similarly.”

Using proteomics as a biomarker was also problematic, according to Dr. Lahita. “It would have been more valuable to investigate differences in cytokines, for example,” he suggested.

Ultimately, Dr. Lahita thinks that the study is “non-contributory to the field and, as complex as the analysis was, it does nothing to shed differentiate the two conditions or explain the syndromes themselves.”

He added that it would have been more valuable to compare ME/CFS not only to ME/CFS plus FM but also with FM without ME/CFS and to healthy controls, and perhaps to a group with an autoimmune condition, such as lupus or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

Dr. Schutzer acknowledged that a limitation of the current study is that his team was unable analyze the CSF of patients with only FM. He and his colleagues “combed the world’s labs” for existing CSF samples of patients with FM alone but were unable to obtain any. “We see this study as a ‘stepping stone’ and hope that future studies will include patients with FM who are willing to donate CSF samples that we can use for comparison,” he said.

The authors received support from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Schutzer, coauthors, and Dr. Lahita reported no relevant financial relationships.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) have overlapping neurologic symptoms — particularly profound fatigue. The similarity between these two conditions has led to the question of whether they are indeed distinct central nervous system (CNS) entities, or whether they exist along a spectrum and are actually two different manifestations of the same disease process.

A new study utilized a novel methodology — unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics — to investigate this question by analyzing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a group of patients with ME/CFS and another group of patients diagnosed with both ME/CFS and FM.

Close to 2,100 proteins were identified, of which nearly 1,800 were common to both conditions.

“ME/CFS and fibromyalgia do not appear to be distinct entities, with respect to their cerebrospinal fluid proteins,” lead author Steven Schutzer, MD, professor of medicine, Rutgers New Jersey School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“Work is underway to solve the multiple mysteries of ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, and other neurologic-associated diseases,” he continued. “We have further affirmed that we have a precise objective discovery tool in our hands. Collectively studying multiple diseases brings clarity to each individual disease.”

The study was published in the December 2023 issue of Annals of Medicine.
 

Cutting-Edge Technology

“ME/CFS is characterized by disabling fatigue, and FM is an illness characterized by body-wide pain,” Dr. Schutzer said. These “medically unexplained” illnesses often coexist by current definitions, and the overlap between them has suggested that they may be part of the “same illness spectrum.”

But co-investigator Benjamin Natelson, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Pain and Fatigue Study Center, Mount Sinai, New York, and others found in previous research that there are distinct differences between the conditions, raising the possibility that there may be different pathophysiological processes.

“The physicians and scientists on our team have had longstanding interest in studying neurologic diseases with cutting-edge tools such as mass spectrometry applied to CSF,” Dr. Schutzer said. “We have had success using this message to distinguish diseases such as ME/CFS from post-treatment Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, and healthy normal people.”

Dr. Schutzer explained that Dr. Natelson had acquired CSF samples from “well-characterized [ME/CFS] patients and controls.”

Since the cause of ME/CFS is “unknown,” it seemed “ripe to investigate it further with the discovery tool of mass spectrometry” by harnessing the “most advanced equipment in the country at the pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is part of the US Department of Energy.”

Dr. Schutzer noted that it was the “merger of different clinical and laboratory expertise” that enabled them to address whether ME/CFS and FM are two distinct disease processes.

The choice of analyzing CSF is that it’s the fluid closest to the brain, he added. “A lot of people have studied ME/CFS peripherally because they don’t have access to spinal fluid or it’s easier to look peripherally in the blood, but that doesn’t mean that the blood is where the real ‘action’ is occurring.”

The researchers compared the CSF of 15 patients with ME/CFS only to 15 patients with ME/CFS+FM using mass spectrometry-based proteomics, which they had employed in previous research to see whether ME/CFS was distinct from persistent neurologic Lyme disease syndrome.

This technology has become the “method of choice and discovery tool to rapidly uncover protein biomarkers that can distinguish one disease from another,” the authors stated.

In particular, in unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics, the researchers do not have to know in advance what’s in a sample before studying it, Dr. Schutzer explained.
 

Shared Pathophysiology?

Both groups of patients were of similar age (41.3 ± 9.4 years and 40.1 ± 11.0 years, respectively), with no differences in gender or rates of current comorbid psychiatric diagnoses between the groups.

The researchers quantified a total of 2,083 proteins, including 1,789 that were specifically quantified in all of the CSF samples, regardless of the presence or absence of FM.

Several analyses (including an ANOVA analysis with adjusted P values, a Random Forest machine learning approach that looked at relative protein abundance changes between those with ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM, and unsupervised hierarchical clustering analyses) did not find distinguishing differences between the groups.

“The sum of these results does not support the hypothesis that ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM are distinct entities, as currently defined,” the authors stated.

They noted that both conditions are “medically unexplained,” with core symptoms of pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and cognitive difficulty. The fact that these two syndromes coexist so often has led to the assumption that the “similarities between them outweigh the differences,” they wrote.

They pointed to some differences between the conditions, including an increase in substance P in the CSF of FM patients, but not in ME/CFS patients reported by others. There are also some immunological, physiological and genetic differences.

But if the conclusion that the two illnesses may share a similar pathophysiological basis is supported by other research that includes FM-only patients as comparators to those with ME/CFS, “this would support the notion that the two illnesses fall along a common illness spectrum and may be approached as a single entity — with implications for both diagnosis and the development of new treatment approaches,” they concluded.
 

‘Noncontributory’ Findings

Commenting on the research, Robert G. Lahita, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Autoimmune and Rheumatic Diseases, St. Joseph Health, Wayne, New Jersey, stated that he does not regard these diseases as neurologic but rather as rheumatologic.

“Most neurologists don’t see these diseases, but as a rheumatologist, I see them every day,” said Dr. Lahita, professor of medicine at Hackensack (New Jersey) Meridian School of Medicine and a clinical professor of medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, New Brunswick. “ME/CFS isn’t as common in my practice, but we do deal with many post-COVID patients who are afflicted mostly with ME/CFS.”

He noted that an important reason for fatigue in FM is that patients generally don’t sleep, or their sleep is disrupted. This is different from the cause of fatigue in ME/CFS.

In addition, the small sample size and the lack of difference between males and females were both limitations of the current study, said Dr. Lahita, who was not involved in this research. “We know that FM disproportionately affects women — in my practice, for example, over 95% of the patients with FM are female — while ME/CFS affects both genders similarly.”

Using proteomics as a biomarker was also problematic, according to Dr. Lahita. “It would have been more valuable to investigate differences in cytokines, for example,” he suggested.

Ultimately, Dr. Lahita thinks that the study is “non-contributory to the field and, as complex as the analysis was, it does nothing to shed differentiate the two conditions or explain the syndromes themselves.”

He added that it would have been more valuable to compare ME/CFS not only to ME/CFS plus FM but also with FM without ME/CFS and to healthy controls, and perhaps to a group with an autoimmune condition, such as lupus or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

Dr. Schutzer acknowledged that a limitation of the current study is that his team was unable analyze the CSF of patients with only FM. He and his colleagues “combed the world’s labs” for existing CSF samples of patients with FM alone but were unable to obtain any. “We see this study as a ‘stepping stone’ and hope that future studies will include patients with FM who are willing to donate CSF samples that we can use for comparison,” he said.

The authors received support from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Schutzer, coauthors, and Dr. Lahita reported no relevant financial relationships.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM) have overlapping neurologic symptoms — particularly profound fatigue. The similarity between these two conditions has led to the question of whether they are indeed distinct central nervous system (CNS) entities, or whether they exist along a spectrum and are actually two different manifestations of the same disease process.

A new study utilized a novel methodology — unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics — to investigate this question by analyzing cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in a group of patients with ME/CFS and another group of patients diagnosed with both ME/CFS and FM.

Close to 2,100 proteins were identified, of which nearly 1,800 were common to both conditions.

“ME/CFS and fibromyalgia do not appear to be distinct entities, with respect to their cerebrospinal fluid proteins,” lead author Steven Schutzer, MD, professor of medicine, Rutgers New Jersey School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“Work is underway to solve the multiple mysteries of ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, and other neurologic-associated diseases,” he continued. “We have further affirmed that we have a precise objective discovery tool in our hands. Collectively studying multiple diseases brings clarity to each individual disease.”

The study was published in the December 2023 issue of Annals of Medicine.
 

Cutting-Edge Technology

“ME/CFS is characterized by disabling fatigue, and FM is an illness characterized by body-wide pain,” Dr. Schutzer said. These “medically unexplained” illnesses often coexist by current definitions, and the overlap between them has suggested that they may be part of the “same illness spectrum.”

But co-investigator Benjamin Natelson, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Pain and Fatigue Study Center, Mount Sinai, New York, and others found in previous research that there are distinct differences between the conditions, raising the possibility that there may be different pathophysiological processes.

“The physicians and scientists on our team have had longstanding interest in studying neurologic diseases with cutting-edge tools such as mass spectrometry applied to CSF,” Dr. Schutzer said. “We have had success using this message to distinguish diseases such as ME/CFS from post-treatment Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, and healthy normal people.”

Dr. Schutzer explained that Dr. Natelson had acquired CSF samples from “well-characterized [ME/CFS] patients and controls.”

Since the cause of ME/CFS is “unknown,” it seemed “ripe to investigate it further with the discovery tool of mass spectrometry” by harnessing the “most advanced equipment in the country at the pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is part of the US Department of Energy.”

Dr. Schutzer noted that it was the “merger of different clinical and laboratory expertise” that enabled them to address whether ME/CFS and FM are two distinct disease processes.

The choice of analyzing CSF is that it’s the fluid closest to the brain, he added. “A lot of people have studied ME/CFS peripherally because they don’t have access to spinal fluid or it’s easier to look peripherally in the blood, but that doesn’t mean that the blood is where the real ‘action’ is occurring.”

The researchers compared the CSF of 15 patients with ME/CFS only to 15 patients with ME/CFS+FM using mass spectrometry-based proteomics, which they had employed in previous research to see whether ME/CFS was distinct from persistent neurologic Lyme disease syndrome.

This technology has become the “method of choice and discovery tool to rapidly uncover protein biomarkers that can distinguish one disease from another,” the authors stated.

In particular, in unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics, the researchers do not have to know in advance what’s in a sample before studying it, Dr. Schutzer explained.
 

Shared Pathophysiology?

Both groups of patients were of similar age (41.3 ± 9.4 years and 40.1 ± 11.0 years, respectively), with no differences in gender or rates of current comorbid psychiatric diagnoses between the groups.

The researchers quantified a total of 2,083 proteins, including 1,789 that were specifically quantified in all of the CSF samples, regardless of the presence or absence of FM.

Several analyses (including an ANOVA analysis with adjusted P values, a Random Forest machine learning approach that looked at relative protein abundance changes between those with ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM, and unsupervised hierarchical clustering analyses) did not find distinguishing differences between the groups.

“The sum of these results does not support the hypothesis that ME/CFS and ME/CFS+FM are distinct entities, as currently defined,” the authors stated.

They noted that both conditions are “medically unexplained,” with core symptoms of pain, fatigue, sleep problems, and cognitive difficulty. The fact that these two syndromes coexist so often has led to the assumption that the “similarities between them outweigh the differences,” they wrote.

They pointed to some differences between the conditions, including an increase in substance P in the CSF of FM patients, but not in ME/CFS patients reported by others. There are also some immunological, physiological and genetic differences.

But if the conclusion that the two illnesses may share a similar pathophysiological basis is supported by other research that includes FM-only patients as comparators to those with ME/CFS, “this would support the notion that the two illnesses fall along a common illness spectrum and may be approached as a single entity — with implications for both diagnosis and the development of new treatment approaches,” they concluded.
 

‘Noncontributory’ Findings

Commenting on the research, Robert G. Lahita, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Autoimmune and Rheumatic Diseases, St. Joseph Health, Wayne, New Jersey, stated that he does not regard these diseases as neurologic but rather as rheumatologic.

“Most neurologists don’t see these diseases, but as a rheumatologist, I see them every day,” said Dr. Lahita, professor of medicine at Hackensack (New Jersey) Meridian School of Medicine and a clinical professor of medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, New Brunswick. “ME/CFS isn’t as common in my practice, but we do deal with many post-COVID patients who are afflicted mostly with ME/CFS.”

He noted that an important reason for fatigue in FM is that patients generally don’t sleep, or their sleep is disrupted. This is different from the cause of fatigue in ME/CFS.

In addition, the small sample size and the lack of difference between males and females were both limitations of the current study, said Dr. Lahita, who was not involved in this research. “We know that FM disproportionately affects women — in my practice, for example, over 95% of the patients with FM are female — while ME/CFS affects both genders similarly.”

Using proteomics as a biomarker was also problematic, according to Dr. Lahita. “It would have been more valuable to investigate differences in cytokines, for example,” he suggested.

Ultimately, Dr. Lahita thinks that the study is “non-contributory to the field and, as complex as the analysis was, it does nothing to shed differentiate the two conditions or explain the syndromes themselves.”

He added that it would have been more valuable to compare ME/CFS not only to ME/CFS plus FM but also with FM without ME/CFS and to healthy controls, and perhaps to a group with an autoimmune condition, such as lupus or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

Dr. Schutzer acknowledged that a limitation of the current study is that his team was unable analyze the CSF of patients with only FM. He and his colleagues “combed the world’s labs” for existing CSF samples of patients with FM alone but were unable to obtain any. “We see this study as a ‘stepping stone’ and hope that future studies will include patients with FM who are willing to donate CSF samples that we can use for comparison,” he said.

The authors received support from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Schutzer, coauthors, and Dr. Lahita reported no relevant financial relationships.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email [email protected] to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email [email protected] to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email [email protected] to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Selecting a treatment plan to deal with acute migraine attacks can be like putting together a toolkit of possible therapies, individualized for each patient, one expert said.

The toolkit should comprise reliable treatments that patients know are going to work and that act quickly, allowing them to get back to functioning normally in their daily lives, said Jessica Ailani, MD, during a talk at the 17th European Headache Congress held recently in Barcelona, Spain. 

“Everyone with migraine needs acute treatment,” Dr. Ailani, who is a clinical professor of neurology at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and director of the Georgetown Headache Center, Washington, DC, noted. “Sometimes we can reduce acute treatment with preventative agents, but some disability will remain, so we have to focus on good acute treatment, and this becomes more complex if a person has a lot of comorbidities, which is common in older patients.” 

In selecting suitable treatments for migraine, consideration has to be given to the patient profile, any other conditions they have, speed of onset of the migraine attack, length of the attack, associated symptoms, and side effects of the medications, she said. 
 

A Complex Case

As an example, Dr. Ailani described the process she used to treat one of her patients who had frequent severe migraines and other issues causing difficult decisions when selecting medications — a woman in her late 60s with several other comorbidities.

“This is the kind of case I see on a daily basis and which keeps me up at night,” she said. “Many times in clinical practice, we see complex cases like this, and through the course of a year, we may try every treatment option we have in a patient like this.”

On the first presentation, the patient had a chronic migraine with severe headaches every day. She had a history of previous cervical discectomy with fusion surgery; uncontrolled hypertension, for which she was taking an angiotensin blocker; high cholesterol, for which she was taking a statin; and diabetes with an A1c of 8. She did not smoke or drink alcohol, exercised moderately, and her body mass index was in a good range. 

“Before a patient ever sees a doctor for their migraine, they will have already tried a lot of different things. Most people are already using NSAIDs and acetaminophen, the most commonly used treatments for acute migraine,” Dr. Ailani explains.

Her patient was taking a triptan and the barbiturate, butalbital. Dr. Ailani notes that the triptan is very effective, but in the United States, they are not available over the counter, and the patient is only allowed nine doses per month on her insurance, so she was supplementing with butalbital. 

Over the course of a year, Dr. Ailani got her off the butalbital and started her on onabotulinum toxin A for migraine prevention, which reduced her headache days to about 15 per month (8 severe). She then added the anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody, galcanezumab, as another preventative, which further reduced the headache days down to 8-10 days per month (all migraine). 

The attacks are rapid onset and can last multiple days. They come with photophobia and phonophobia and cause her to be bedridden, she noted. 

“I was still worried about this frequency of headache and the fact she was using a triptan for acute treatment when she had uncontrolled hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors, Dr. Ailani commented. 

She explained that triptans are generally not used in individuals aged over 65 years because of a lack of data in this age group. They are also contraindicated in patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease, and caution is advised in patients with CV risk factors. Noting that migraine is an independent risk factor for stroke in healthy individuals, and this patient already had three other major risk factors for stroke, Dr. Ailani said she did not think a triptan was the best option. 

When triptans do not work, Dr. Ailani said she thinks about dihydroergotamine, which she describes as “a great drug for long-lasting migraine” as it tends to have a sustained response. But it also has vasoconstrictive effects and can increase blood pressure, so it was not suitable for this patient. 

CV risk is also an issue with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), one of the staple treatments for acute migraine.

“NSAIDs are available over the counter, inexpensive, quite effective, and have minimal immediate side effects,” Dr. Ailani said. But long-term adverse events include CV events, particularly in those who already have CV risk factors, and it is now thought that NSAIDs actually carry more CV risk than triptans.

She noted that out of all the NSAIDs, celecoxib carries the lowest CV risk, and in the United States, it is available as a liquid formulation. There is also a study of ketorolac nasal spray showing it to be as effective as sumatriptan nasal spray for acute migraine.

As her patient was still going to the emergency room (ER) quite frequently at this point, Dr. Ailani prescribed ketorolac nasal spray as an emergency rescue medication, which did help to reduce ER visits but did not solve the acute treatment problem.

The next option she tried was the CGRP antagonists or “gepants” because of their good tolerability.

Because her patient had long attacks, Dr. Ailani said her first choice gepant was rimegepant as it has a long half-life.

She noted that in patients who have frequent migraine attacks (> 6 migraine days per month), using rimegepant as needed has been shown to lead to migraine frequency declining over time. “This shows that if we treat acute attacks properly, we can minimize the risk of chronic migraine.”

She pointed out that if a patient has prodrome that is easy to identify or has short attacks, ubrogepant may be a good option, having shown effectiveness in preventing or reducing the onset of the headache in the recently reported PRODROME trial when given the day before migraine starts.

Then there is also zavegepant, which is available as a nasal spray, so it is a good option for patients with nausea and vomiting. Dr. Ailani suggested that zavegepant as a third-generation gepant may be worth trying in patients who have tried the other gepants, as it is a different type of molecule.

For this patient, neither rimegepant nor ubrogepant worked. “We tried treating in the prodrome, when the pain was starting, adding to other treatments, but she is not a ‘gepant’ responder. We have yet to try zavegepant,” she said.

The next consideration was lasmiditan. “This patient is a triptan responder and lasmiditan is a 5HT1 agonist, so it makes sense to try this. Also, it doesn’t have a vasoconstrictor effect as it doesn’t work on the blood vessels, so it is safe for patients with high blood pressure,” Dr. Ailani noted.

She pointed out, however, that lasmiditan has become a rescue medication in her practice because of side effect issues such as dizziness and sleepiness.

But Dr. Ailani said she has learned how to use the medication to minimize the side effects, by increasing the dose slowly and advising patients to take it later in the day.

“We start with 50 mg for a few doses then increase to 100 mg. This seems to build tolerability.”

Her patient has found good relief from lasmiditan 100 mg, but she can’t take it during the day as it makes her sleepy.

As a last resort, Dr. Ailani went back to metoclopramide, which she described as “a tried and tested old-time drug.”

While this does not make the patient sleepy, it has other adverse effects limiting the frequency of its use, she noted. “I ask her to try to limit it to twice a week, and this has been pretty effective. She can function when she uses it.” 

Dr. Ailani also points out that neuromodulation should be in everyone’s tool kit. “So, we added an external combined occipital and trigeminal (eCOT device) neurostimulation device.”

The patient’s tool kit now looks like this:

• Neuromodulation device and meditation at first sign of an attack.
• Add metoclopramide 10 mg and acetaminophen 1000 mg.
• If the attack lasts into the second day, add lasmiditan 100 mg in the evening of the second day (limit 8 days a month).
• If the patient has a sudden onset severe migraine with nausea and vomiting that might make her go to the ER, add in ketorolac nasal spray (not > 5 days per month).

Dr. Ailani noted that other patients will need different toolkits, and in most cases, it is recommended to think about “situational prevention” for times when migraine attacks are predictable, which may include air travel, high-stress times (holidays, etc.), occasions when alcohol will be consumed, and at times of certain weather triggers.

Dr. Ailani disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Selecting a treatment plan to deal with acute migraine attacks can be like putting together a toolkit of possible therapies, individualized for each patient, one expert said.

The toolkit should comprise reliable treatments that patients know are going to work and that act quickly, allowing them to get back to functioning normally in their daily lives, said Jessica Ailani, MD, during a talk at the 17th European Headache Congress held recently in Barcelona, Spain. 

“Everyone with migraine needs acute treatment,” Dr. Ailani, who is a clinical professor of neurology at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and director of the Georgetown Headache Center, Washington, DC, noted. “Sometimes we can reduce acute treatment with preventative agents, but some disability will remain, so we have to focus on good acute treatment, and this becomes more complex if a person has a lot of comorbidities, which is common in older patients.” 

In selecting suitable treatments for migraine, consideration has to be given to the patient profile, any other conditions they have, speed of onset of the migraine attack, length of the attack, associated symptoms, and side effects of the medications, she said. 
 

A Complex Case

As an example, Dr. Ailani described the process she used to treat one of her patients who had frequent severe migraines and other issues causing difficult decisions when selecting medications — a woman in her late 60s with several other comorbidities.

“This is the kind of case I see on a daily basis and which keeps me up at night,” she said. “Many times in clinical practice, we see complex cases like this, and through the course of a year, we may try every treatment option we have in a patient like this.”

On the first presentation, the patient had a chronic migraine with severe headaches every day. She had a history of previous cervical discectomy with fusion surgery; uncontrolled hypertension, for which she was taking an angiotensin blocker; high cholesterol, for which she was taking a statin; and diabetes with an A1c of 8. She did not smoke or drink alcohol, exercised moderately, and her body mass index was in a good range. 

“Before a patient ever sees a doctor for their migraine, they will have already tried a lot of different things. Most people are already using NSAIDs and acetaminophen, the most commonly used treatments for acute migraine,” Dr. Ailani explains.

Her patient was taking a triptan and the barbiturate, butalbital. Dr. Ailani notes that the triptan is very effective, but in the United States, they are not available over the counter, and the patient is only allowed nine doses per month on her insurance, so she was supplementing with butalbital. 

Over the course of a year, Dr. Ailani got her off the butalbital and started her on onabotulinum toxin A for migraine prevention, which reduced her headache days to about 15 per month (8 severe). She then added the anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody, galcanezumab, as another preventative, which further reduced the headache days down to 8-10 days per month (all migraine). 

The attacks are rapid onset and can last multiple days. They come with photophobia and phonophobia and cause her to be bedridden, she noted. 

“I was still worried about this frequency of headache and the fact she was using a triptan for acute treatment when she had uncontrolled hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors, Dr. Ailani commented. 

She explained that triptans are generally not used in individuals aged over 65 years because of a lack of data in this age group. They are also contraindicated in patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease, and caution is advised in patients with CV risk factors. Noting that migraine is an independent risk factor for stroke in healthy individuals, and this patient already had three other major risk factors for stroke, Dr. Ailani said she did not think a triptan was the best option. 

When triptans do not work, Dr. Ailani said she thinks about dihydroergotamine, which she describes as “a great drug for long-lasting migraine” as it tends to have a sustained response. But it also has vasoconstrictive effects and can increase blood pressure, so it was not suitable for this patient. 

CV risk is also an issue with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), one of the staple treatments for acute migraine.

“NSAIDs are available over the counter, inexpensive, quite effective, and have minimal immediate side effects,” Dr. Ailani said. But long-term adverse events include CV events, particularly in those who already have CV risk factors, and it is now thought that NSAIDs actually carry more CV risk than triptans.

She noted that out of all the NSAIDs, celecoxib carries the lowest CV risk, and in the United States, it is available as a liquid formulation. There is also a study of ketorolac nasal spray showing it to be as effective as sumatriptan nasal spray for acute migraine.

As her patient was still going to the emergency room (ER) quite frequently at this point, Dr. Ailani prescribed ketorolac nasal spray as an emergency rescue medication, which did help to reduce ER visits but did not solve the acute treatment problem.

The next option she tried was the CGRP antagonists or “gepants” because of their good tolerability.

Because her patient had long attacks, Dr. Ailani said her first choice gepant was rimegepant as it has a long half-life.

She noted that in patients who have frequent migraine attacks (> 6 migraine days per month), using rimegepant as needed has been shown to lead to migraine frequency declining over time. “This shows that if we treat acute attacks properly, we can minimize the risk of chronic migraine.”

She pointed out that if a patient has prodrome that is easy to identify or has short attacks, ubrogepant may be a good option, having shown effectiveness in preventing or reducing the onset of the headache in the recently reported PRODROME trial when given the day before migraine starts.

Then there is also zavegepant, which is available as a nasal spray, so it is a good option for patients with nausea and vomiting. Dr. Ailani suggested that zavegepant as a third-generation gepant may be worth trying in patients who have tried the other gepants, as it is a different type of molecule.

For this patient, neither rimegepant nor ubrogepant worked. “We tried treating in the prodrome, when the pain was starting, adding to other treatments, but she is not a ‘gepant’ responder. We have yet to try zavegepant,” she said.

The next consideration was lasmiditan. “This patient is a triptan responder and lasmiditan is a 5HT1 agonist, so it makes sense to try this. Also, it doesn’t have a vasoconstrictor effect as it doesn’t work on the blood vessels, so it is safe for patients with high blood pressure,” Dr. Ailani noted.

She pointed out, however, that lasmiditan has become a rescue medication in her practice because of side effect issues such as dizziness and sleepiness.

But Dr. Ailani said she has learned how to use the medication to minimize the side effects, by increasing the dose slowly and advising patients to take it later in the day.

“We start with 50 mg for a few doses then increase to 100 mg. This seems to build tolerability.”

Her patient has found good relief from lasmiditan 100 mg, but she can’t take it during the day as it makes her sleepy.

As a last resort, Dr. Ailani went back to metoclopramide, which she described as “a tried and tested old-time drug.”

While this does not make the patient sleepy, it has other adverse effects limiting the frequency of its use, she noted. “I ask her to try to limit it to twice a week, and this has been pretty effective. She can function when she uses it.” 

Dr. Ailani also points out that neuromodulation should be in everyone’s tool kit. “So, we added an external combined occipital and trigeminal (eCOT device) neurostimulation device.”

The patient’s tool kit now looks like this:

• Neuromodulation device and meditation at first sign of an attack.
• Add metoclopramide 10 mg and acetaminophen 1000 mg.
• If the attack lasts into the second day, add lasmiditan 100 mg in the evening of the second day (limit 8 days a month).
• If the patient has a sudden onset severe migraine with nausea and vomiting that might make her go to the ER, add in ketorolac nasal spray (not > 5 days per month).

Dr. Ailani noted that other patients will need different toolkits, and in most cases, it is recommended to think about “situational prevention” for times when migraine attacks are predictable, which may include air travel, high-stress times (holidays, etc.), occasions when alcohol will be consumed, and at times of certain weather triggers.

Dr. Ailani disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Selecting a treatment plan to deal with acute migraine attacks can be like putting together a toolkit of possible therapies, individualized for each patient, one expert said.

The toolkit should comprise reliable treatments that patients know are going to work and that act quickly, allowing them to get back to functioning normally in their daily lives, said Jessica Ailani, MD, during a talk at the 17th European Headache Congress held recently in Barcelona, Spain. 

“Everyone with migraine needs acute treatment,” Dr. Ailani, who is a clinical professor of neurology at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital and director of the Georgetown Headache Center, Washington, DC, noted. “Sometimes we can reduce acute treatment with preventative agents, but some disability will remain, so we have to focus on good acute treatment, and this becomes more complex if a person has a lot of comorbidities, which is common in older patients.” 

In selecting suitable treatments for migraine, consideration has to be given to the patient profile, any other conditions they have, speed of onset of the migraine attack, length of the attack, associated symptoms, and side effects of the medications, she said. 
 

A Complex Case

As an example, Dr. Ailani described the process she used to treat one of her patients who had frequent severe migraines and other issues causing difficult decisions when selecting medications — a woman in her late 60s with several other comorbidities.

“This is the kind of case I see on a daily basis and which keeps me up at night,” she said. “Many times in clinical practice, we see complex cases like this, and through the course of a year, we may try every treatment option we have in a patient like this.”

On the first presentation, the patient had a chronic migraine with severe headaches every day. She had a history of previous cervical discectomy with fusion surgery; uncontrolled hypertension, for which she was taking an angiotensin blocker; high cholesterol, for which she was taking a statin; and diabetes with an A1c of 8. She did not smoke or drink alcohol, exercised moderately, and her body mass index was in a good range. 

“Before a patient ever sees a doctor for their migraine, they will have already tried a lot of different things. Most people are already using NSAIDs and acetaminophen, the most commonly used treatments for acute migraine,” Dr. Ailani explains.

Her patient was taking a triptan and the barbiturate, butalbital. Dr. Ailani notes that the triptan is very effective, but in the United States, they are not available over the counter, and the patient is only allowed nine doses per month on her insurance, so she was supplementing with butalbital. 

Over the course of a year, Dr. Ailani got her off the butalbital and started her on onabotulinum toxin A for migraine prevention, which reduced her headache days to about 15 per month (8 severe). She then added the anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody, galcanezumab, as another preventative, which further reduced the headache days down to 8-10 days per month (all migraine). 

The attacks are rapid onset and can last multiple days. They come with photophobia and phonophobia and cause her to be bedridden, she noted. 

“I was still worried about this frequency of headache and the fact she was using a triptan for acute treatment when she had uncontrolled hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors, Dr. Ailani commented. 

She explained that triptans are generally not used in individuals aged over 65 years because of a lack of data in this age group. They are also contraindicated in patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease, and caution is advised in patients with CV risk factors. Noting that migraine is an independent risk factor for stroke in healthy individuals, and this patient already had three other major risk factors for stroke, Dr. Ailani said she did not think a triptan was the best option. 

When triptans do not work, Dr. Ailani said she thinks about dihydroergotamine, which she describes as “a great drug for long-lasting migraine” as it tends to have a sustained response. But it also has vasoconstrictive effects and can increase blood pressure, so it was not suitable for this patient. 

CV risk is also an issue with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), one of the staple treatments for acute migraine.

“NSAIDs are available over the counter, inexpensive, quite effective, and have minimal immediate side effects,” Dr. Ailani said. But long-term adverse events include CV events, particularly in those who already have CV risk factors, and it is now thought that NSAIDs actually carry more CV risk than triptans.

She noted that out of all the NSAIDs, celecoxib carries the lowest CV risk, and in the United States, it is available as a liquid formulation. There is also a study of ketorolac nasal spray showing it to be as effective as sumatriptan nasal spray for acute migraine.

As her patient was still going to the emergency room (ER) quite frequently at this point, Dr. Ailani prescribed ketorolac nasal spray as an emergency rescue medication, which did help to reduce ER visits but did not solve the acute treatment problem.

The next option she tried was the CGRP antagonists or “gepants” because of their good tolerability.

Because her patient had long attacks, Dr. Ailani said her first choice gepant was rimegepant as it has a long half-life.

She noted that in patients who have frequent migraine attacks (> 6 migraine days per month), using rimegepant as needed has been shown to lead to migraine frequency declining over time. “This shows that if we treat acute attacks properly, we can minimize the risk of chronic migraine.”

She pointed out that if a patient has prodrome that is easy to identify or has short attacks, ubrogepant may be a good option, having shown effectiveness in preventing or reducing the onset of the headache in the recently reported PRODROME trial when given the day before migraine starts.

Then there is also zavegepant, which is available as a nasal spray, so it is a good option for patients with nausea and vomiting. Dr. Ailani suggested that zavegepant as a third-generation gepant may be worth trying in patients who have tried the other gepants, as it is a different type of molecule.

For this patient, neither rimegepant nor ubrogepant worked. “We tried treating in the prodrome, when the pain was starting, adding to other treatments, but she is not a ‘gepant’ responder. We have yet to try zavegepant,” she said.

The next consideration was lasmiditan. “This patient is a triptan responder and lasmiditan is a 5HT1 agonist, so it makes sense to try this. Also, it doesn’t have a vasoconstrictor effect as it doesn’t work on the blood vessels, so it is safe for patients with high blood pressure,” Dr. Ailani noted.

She pointed out, however, that lasmiditan has become a rescue medication in her practice because of side effect issues such as dizziness and sleepiness.

But Dr. Ailani said she has learned how to use the medication to minimize the side effects, by increasing the dose slowly and advising patients to take it later in the day.

“We start with 50 mg for a few doses then increase to 100 mg. This seems to build tolerability.”

Her patient has found good relief from lasmiditan 100 mg, but she can’t take it during the day as it makes her sleepy.

As a last resort, Dr. Ailani went back to metoclopramide, which she described as “a tried and tested old-time drug.”

While this does not make the patient sleepy, it has other adverse effects limiting the frequency of its use, she noted. “I ask her to try to limit it to twice a week, and this has been pretty effective. She can function when she uses it.” 

Dr. Ailani also points out that neuromodulation should be in everyone’s tool kit. “So, we added an external combined occipital and trigeminal (eCOT device) neurostimulation device.”

The patient’s tool kit now looks like this:

• Neuromodulation device and meditation at first sign of an attack.
• Add metoclopramide 10 mg and acetaminophen 1000 mg.
• If the attack lasts into the second day, add lasmiditan 100 mg in the evening of the second day (limit 8 days a month).
• If the patient has a sudden onset severe migraine with nausea and vomiting that might make her go to the ER, add in ketorolac nasal spray (not > 5 days per month).

Dr. Ailani noted that other patients will need different toolkits, and in most cases, it is recommended to think about “situational prevention” for times when migraine attacks are predictable, which may include air travel, high-stress times (holidays, etc.), occasions when alcohol will be consumed, and at times of certain weather triggers.

Dr. Ailani disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.