Pain

Primary care physicians should consider referring patients with lower back pain (LBP) to physical therapists to avoid later high-cost and potentially unnecessary care, suggests new research.

The study found that patients who were referred to physical therapists within 2 weeks of seeing their physicians for LBP were significantly less likely to make visits to a chiropractor, pain specialist, or orthopedist.

Patients also filed fewer claims for advanced imaging or epidural steroid injections and were half as likely to visit an emergency department (ED) within 30 days compared with those who did not start early physical therapy (PT), according to the study, published in BMC Health Services Research.

“Some lower back pain resolves itself, but often, that recovery is incomplete, leading to increased health care and opioid use,” said Richard L. Skolasky Jr., ScD, director of the Spine Outcomes Research Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, and a coauthor of the study. “Our hope is this study helps more primary care physicians embrace nonpharmacologic, first-line treatments.”

LBP accounts for an estimated $1.8 billion annually in health care costs among the patients who do not receive surgery for the condition, according to a 2019 JAMA analysis of commercial insurance and Medicare claims. In addition, LBP accounts for approximately 2.7 million ED visits annually, a 2010 study published in Spine showed.

Dr. Skolasky and his colleagues assessed 980,000 outpatient claims over a period of almost 4 years that ended in 2014. The researchers used Truven MarketScan, a group of U.S.-based administrative commercial health care insurance claims databases. Patients who had a history of conditions that cause LBP, such as endometriosis and spinal fracture, were excluded from the analysis. Approximately 11% of patients in the total sample received early PT, defined as PT received within 2 weeks of their initial visit to a primary care clinician.

After adjustment for sex, age, and Charlson Morbidity Index, patients who received PT were about half as likely as were those who didn’t to see chiropractor or a pain specialist or have an ED visit within 30 days of their initial appointment. They were about one-third as likely to receive an epidural steroid injection, and they were 43% less likely to have claims for advanced imaging, according to the researchers (P < .001 for all).

In addition, the cost of claims was lower for patients who received early PT ($747 vs. $799), the researchers found.

The effects diminished somewhat over time but remained statistically significant.

At 1 year, patients who received early PT had slightly higher health care costs than did those who did not undergo PT ($2,588 vs. $2,510). Dr. Skolasky hypothesized that the increase was attributable to therapy visits and not having as many specialist visits. He said additional research could investigate whether early PT reduces the health care costs associated with LBP over a longer period.

“Physical therapy addresses a patient’s current pain and physical limitations and arms them with resources, exercises, and nonpharmacologic ways to deal with recurrences,” Dr. Skolasky said in an interview. “If we can follow patients even longer than a year, we may see a longer-term reduction in cost.”

Michael Knight, MD, associate chief quality and population health officer at George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, Washington, said he refers patients to physical therapists if their pain has not resolved within 2 weeks of stretching at home and taking over-the-counter analgesics.

Dr. Knight recalled one patient who had strained her back doing yard work. When home exercises did not help, Dr. Knight referred her to a physical therapist, who created a customized treatment plan. Within 4 weeks, her condition had improved.

“She was then able to take what she learned and continue those exercises at home,” Dr. Knight said. “She got better, and we avoided MRI costs for her and the health care system.”

Dr. Skolasky and his fellow researchers found significant regional differences in the number of patients referred for early PT. The odds of PT utilization within 90 days after the onset of LBP were 1.6 times higher in the Northeast and 0.82 times lower in the South.

“There are health care deserts,” Dr. Skolasky said. “This study should spark a conversation about the inadequacy of distribution of physical resources to meet the needs of patients with LBP.”

Dr. Skolasky said telehealth could be one option for serving patients in these health care deserts – including those with LBP. He has conducted several studies that concluded that patients benefit from and are happy with telehealth PT.

Dr. Knight said Dr. Skolasky’s study will help patients better understand their options.

“Sometimes patients have an expectation – they want an MRI or pain medication when it’s not necessary,” he said. “This kind of evidence helps strengthen our recommendation for early intervention that really can help.”

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. Dr. Skolasky reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians should consider referring patients with lower back pain (LBP) to physical therapists to avoid later high-cost and potentially unnecessary care, suggests new research.

The study found that patients who were referred to physical therapists within 2 weeks of seeing their physicians for LBP were significantly less likely to make visits to a chiropractor, pain specialist, or orthopedist.

Patients also filed fewer claims for advanced imaging or epidural steroid injections and were half as likely to visit an emergency department (ED) within 30 days compared with those who did not start early physical therapy (PT), according to the study, published in BMC Health Services Research.

“Some lower back pain resolves itself, but often, that recovery is incomplete, leading to increased health care and opioid use,” said Richard L. Skolasky Jr., ScD, director of the Spine Outcomes Research Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, and a coauthor of the study. “Our hope is this study helps more primary care physicians embrace nonpharmacologic, first-line treatments.”

LBP accounts for an estimated $1.8 billion annually in health care costs among the patients who do not receive surgery for the condition, according to a 2019 JAMA analysis of commercial insurance and Medicare claims. In addition, LBP accounts for approximately 2.7 million ED visits annually, a 2010 study published in Spine showed.

Dr. Skolasky and his colleagues assessed 980,000 outpatient claims over a period of almost 4 years that ended in 2014. The researchers used Truven MarketScan, a group of U.S.-based administrative commercial health care insurance claims databases. Patients who had a history of conditions that cause LBP, such as endometriosis and spinal fracture, were excluded from the analysis. Approximately 11% of patients in the total sample received early PT, defined as PT received within 2 weeks of their initial visit to a primary care clinician.

After adjustment for sex, age, and Charlson Morbidity Index, patients who received PT were about half as likely as were those who didn’t to see chiropractor or a pain specialist or have an ED visit within 30 days of their initial appointment. They were about one-third as likely to receive an epidural steroid injection, and they were 43% less likely to have claims for advanced imaging, according to the researchers (P < .001 for all).

In addition, the cost of claims was lower for patients who received early PT ($747 vs. $799), the researchers found.

The effects diminished somewhat over time but remained statistically significant.

At 1 year, patients who received early PT had slightly higher health care costs than did those who did not undergo PT ($2,588 vs. $2,510). Dr. Skolasky hypothesized that the increase was attributable to therapy visits and not having as many specialist visits. He said additional research could investigate whether early PT reduces the health care costs associated with LBP over a longer period.

“Physical therapy addresses a patient’s current pain and physical limitations and arms them with resources, exercises, and nonpharmacologic ways to deal with recurrences,” Dr. Skolasky said in an interview. “If we can follow patients even longer than a year, we may see a longer-term reduction in cost.”

Michael Knight, MD, associate chief quality and population health officer at George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, Washington, said he refers patients to physical therapists if their pain has not resolved within 2 weeks of stretching at home and taking over-the-counter analgesics.

Dr. Knight recalled one patient who had strained her back doing yard work. When home exercises did not help, Dr. Knight referred her to a physical therapist, who created a customized treatment plan. Within 4 weeks, her condition had improved.

“She was then able to take what she learned and continue those exercises at home,” Dr. Knight said. “She got better, and we avoided MRI costs for her and the health care system.”

Dr. Skolasky and his fellow researchers found significant regional differences in the number of patients referred for early PT. The odds of PT utilization within 90 days after the onset of LBP were 1.6 times higher in the Northeast and 0.82 times lower in the South.

“There are health care deserts,” Dr. Skolasky said. “This study should spark a conversation about the inadequacy of distribution of physical resources to meet the needs of patients with LBP.”

Dr. Skolasky said telehealth could be one option for serving patients in these health care deserts – including those with LBP. He has conducted several studies that concluded that patients benefit from and are happy with telehealth PT.

Dr. Knight said Dr. Skolasky’s study will help patients better understand their options.

“Sometimes patients have an expectation – they want an MRI or pain medication when it’s not necessary,” he said. “This kind of evidence helps strengthen our recommendation for early intervention that really can help.”

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. Dr. Skolasky reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians should consider referring patients with lower back pain (LBP) to physical therapists to avoid later high-cost and potentially unnecessary care, suggests new research.

The study found that patients who were referred to physical therapists within 2 weeks of seeing their physicians for LBP were significantly less likely to make visits to a chiropractor, pain specialist, or orthopedist.

Patients also filed fewer claims for advanced imaging or epidural steroid injections and were half as likely to visit an emergency department (ED) within 30 days compared with those who did not start early physical therapy (PT), according to the study, published in BMC Health Services Research.

“Some lower back pain resolves itself, but often, that recovery is incomplete, leading to increased health care and opioid use,” said Richard L. Skolasky Jr., ScD, director of the Spine Outcomes Research Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, and a coauthor of the study. “Our hope is this study helps more primary care physicians embrace nonpharmacologic, first-line treatments.”

LBP accounts for an estimated $1.8 billion annually in health care costs among the patients who do not receive surgery for the condition, according to a 2019 JAMA analysis of commercial insurance and Medicare claims. In addition, LBP accounts for approximately 2.7 million ED visits annually, a 2010 study published in Spine showed.

Dr. Skolasky and his colleagues assessed 980,000 outpatient claims over a period of almost 4 years that ended in 2014. The researchers used Truven MarketScan, a group of U.S.-based administrative commercial health care insurance claims databases. Patients who had a history of conditions that cause LBP, such as endometriosis and spinal fracture, were excluded from the analysis. Approximately 11% of patients in the total sample received early PT, defined as PT received within 2 weeks of their initial visit to a primary care clinician.

After adjustment for sex, age, and Charlson Morbidity Index, patients who received PT were about half as likely as were those who didn’t to see chiropractor or a pain specialist or have an ED visit within 30 days of their initial appointment. They were about one-third as likely to receive an epidural steroid injection, and they were 43% less likely to have claims for advanced imaging, according to the researchers (P < .001 for all).

In addition, the cost of claims was lower for patients who received early PT ($747 vs. $799), the researchers found.

The effects diminished somewhat over time but remained statistically significant.

At 1 year, patients who received early PT had slightly higher health care costs than did those who did not undergo PT ($2,588 vs. $2,510). Dr. Skolasky hypothesized that the increase was attributable to therapy visits and not having as many specialist visits. He said additional research could investigate whether early PT reduces the health care costs associated with LBP over a longer period.

“Physical therapy addresses a patient’s current pain and physical limitations and arms them with resources, exercises, and nonpharmacologic ways to deal with recurrences,” Dr. Skolasky said in an interview. “If we can follow patients even longer than a year, we may see a longer-term reduction in cost.”

Michael Knight, MD, associate chief quality and population health officer at George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, Washington, said he refers patients to physical therapists if their pain has not resolved within 2 weeks of stretching at home and taking over-the-counter analgesics.

Dr. Knight recalled one patient who had strained her back doing yard work. When home exercises did not help, Dr. Knight referred her to a physical therapist, who created a customized treatment plan. Within 4 weeks, her condition had improved.

“She was then able to take what she learned and continue those exercises at home,” Dr. Knight said. “She got better, and we avoided MRI costs for her and the health care system.”

Dr. Skolasky and his fellow researchers found significant regional differences in the number of patients referred for early PT. The odds of PT utilization within 90 days after the onset of LBP were 1.6 times higher in the Northeast and 0.82 times lower in the South.

“There are health care deserts,” Dr. Skolasky said. “This study should spark a conversation about the inadequacy of distribution of physical resources to meet the needs of patients with LBP.”

Dr. Skolasky said telehealth could be one option for serving patients in these health care deserts – including those with LBP. He has conducted several studies that concluded that patients benefit from and are happy with telehealth PT.

Dr. Knight said Dr. Skolasky’s study will help patients better understand their options.

“Sometimes patients have an expectation – they want an MRI or pain medication when it’s not necessary,” he said. “This kind of evidence helps strengthen our recommendation for early intervention that really can help.”

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. Dr. Skolasky reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

Pain is classified as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3-6 months (“Classification of chronic pain” 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994). This universally accepted definition does not distinguish between physical and emotional pain. Categorically, pain is pain. Two prevalent chronic gynecologic diseases are closely related medically and emotionally. Forty percent to 50% of women with endometriosis have infertility; 30%-50% of women with infertility are found to have coexisting endometriosis. The approach to both is, typically, symptomatic treatment. In this month’s column, I examine the relationship between these ailments and how we can advise women on management.

Endometriosis is simply defined as the displacement of normal endometrial glands and stroma from their natural anatomical location to elsewhere in the body. With the recent identification of the disease in the spleen, endometriosis has been found in every organ system. Endometriosis is identified in 6%-10% of the general female population. The prevalence ranges from 2% to 11% among asymptomatic women and from 5% to 21% in women hospitalized for pelvic pain (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1-15). Compared with fertile women, infertile women are six to eight times more likely to have endometriosis (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Retrograde menstruation is the presumed theory for the origins of endometriosis, that is, the reflux of menstrual debris containing active endometrial cells through the fallopian tubes into the peritoneal cavity (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14:422-69). Because of the varied etiologies of the most common symptoms of endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and infertility, women visit, on average, seven physicians before being diagnosed (Fertil Steril. 2011;96:366). The delay in promptly identifying endometriosis is further impaired by the lack of specific biomarkers, awareness, and inadequate evaluation (N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1244-56).

The 2008 U.S. health care costs for endometriosis were approximately $4,000 per affected woman, analogous to the costs for other chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis (Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1292-9). The management of symptoms further increases the financial burden because of the effect of the disease on physical, mental, sexual, and social well-being, as well as productivity (Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:123).

We have known the paradoxical relationship between the stage of endometriosis and symptoms: Women with low-stage disease may present with severe pain and/or infertility but those with advanced-stage disease may be asymptomatic. Endometriotic cells and tissue elicit a localized immune and inflammatory response with the production of cytokines, chemokines, and prostaglandins. Given the usual intra-abdominal location and the small size of implants, endometriosis requires a surgical diagnosis, ideally with histopathology for confirmation. However, imaging – transvaginal ultrasound or MRI – has more than 90% sensitivity and specificity for identifying endometriomas (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2[2]:CD009591).

The effect of endometriosis on fertility, particularly in women with minimal to mild stages, is not clear, and many studies have been retrospective. Tubal factor infertility can be a result of endometriosis. Per the 2020 Cochrane Database Systemic Reviews (2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031), “Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis; no data were reported on live birth. There is moderate-quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only.” In women undergoing IVF, more advanced stages of endometriosis have reduced pregnancy outcomes as shown in recent meta-analyses (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:79-88).

The revised ASRM (rASRM) surgical staging classification of endometriosis has been widely used to describe the degree, although it poorly correlates with fertility potential (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8). Women diagnosed with endometriosis may benefit from the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010 as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and intrauterine insemination) based on patient characteristics, rASRM staging and “least function” score of the adnexa (Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1609-15).

Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. “Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031).”

The treatment of endometriosis is directly related to the desire for and timing of fertility since therapy is often contraceptive, as opposed to surgery. Because endometriosis is exacerbated by estradiol, the mainstay of medical therapy is initially combined hormonal or progestin-only contraception as a means of reducing pelvic pain by reducing estradiol production and action, respectively. GnRH-agonist suppression of follicle stimulation hormone and luteinizing hormone remains the standard for inactivating endogenous estradiol. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved elagolix for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis – the first pill specifically approved for endometriosis pain relief. An off-label approach for women is letrozole, the aromatase inhibitor, to reduce circulating estradiol levels. Unfortunately, estradiol suppression cannot be used solely long term without add-back therapy, because of the risk of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms.

Excision of endometriomas adversely affects ovarian follicular reserve (as indicated by lower levels of anti-müllerian hormone and reduced ovarian antral follicle counts on ultrasound). For women who want to preserve their fertility, the potential benefits of surgery should be weighed against these negative effects. Surgical treatment of endometriosis in women without other identifiable infertility factors may improve rates of spontaneous pregnancy. In women with moderate to severe endometriosis, intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation may be of value, particularly with preceding GnRH-agonist therapy (J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2018;10[3]:158-73).

Despite the reduction in IVF outcomes in women with moderate to severe endometriosis, it remains unclear whether surgery improves the likelihood of pregnancy with IVF as does the concurrent use of prolonged GnRH agonist during IVF stimulation. (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Summary

• Medical therapy alone does not appear to improve fertility in endometriosis.
• Surgical treatment of endometriosis improves natural fertility, particularly in lower-stage endometriosis.
• EFI is a useful tool to predict postoperative natural fertility and assess the need for IVF.
• Despite advanced endometriosis reducing IVF outcomes, surgery or medical pretreatment to increase IVF success remains unproven.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Pain is classified as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3-6 months (“Classification of chronic pain” 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994). This universally accepted definition does not distinguish between physical and emotional pain. Categorically, pain is pain. Two prevalent chronic gynecologic diseases are closely related medically and emotionally. Forty percent to 50% of women with endometriosis have infertility; 30%-50% of women with infertility are found to have coexisting endometriosis. The approach to both is, typically, symptomatic treatment. In this month’s column, I examine the relationship between these ailments and how we can advise women on management.

Endometriosis is simply defined as the displacement of normal endometrial glands and stroma from their natural anatomical location to elsewhere in the body. With the recent identification of the disease in the spleen, endometriosis has been found in every organ system. Endometriosis is identified in 6%-10% of the general female population. The prevalence ranges from 2% to 11% among asymptomatic women and from 5% to 21% in women hospitalized for pelvic pain (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1-15). Compared with fertile women, infertile women are six to eight times more likely to have endometriosis (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Retrograde menstruation is the presumed theory for the origins of endometriosis, that is, the reflux of menstrual debris containing active endometrial cells through the fallopian tubes into the peritoneal cavity (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14:422-69). Because of the varied etiologies of the most common symptoms of endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and infertility, women visit, on average, seven physicians before being diagnosed (Fertil Steril. 2011;96:366). The delay in promptly identifying endometriosis is further impaired by the lack of specific biomarkers, awareness, and inadequate evaluation (N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1244-56).

The 2008 U.S. health care costs for endometriosis were approximately $4,000 per affected woman, analogous to the costs for other chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis (Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1292-9). The management of symptoms further increases the financial burden because of the effect of the disease on physical, mental, sexual, and social well-being, as well as productivity (Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:123).

We have known the paradoxical relationship between the stage of endometriosis and symptoms: Women with low-stage disease may present with severe pain and/or infertility but those with advanced-stage disease may be asymptomatic. Endometriotic cells and tissue elicit a localized immune and inflammatory response with the production of cytokines, chemokines, and prostaglandins. Given the usual intra-abdominal location and the small size of implants, endometriosis requires a surgical diagnosis, ideally with histopathology for confirmation. However, imaging – transvaginal ultrasound or MRI – has more than 90% sensitivity and specificity for identifying endometriomas (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2[2]:CD009591).

The effect of endometriosis on fertility, particularly in women with minimal to mild stages, is not clear, and many studies have been retrospective. Tubal factor infertility can be a result of endometriosis. Per the 2020 Cochrane Database Systemic Reviews (2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031), “Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis; no data were reported on live birth. There is moderate-quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only.” In women undergoing IVF, more advanced stages of endometriosis have reduced pregnancy outcomes as shown in recent meta-analyses (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:79-88).

The revised ASRM (rASRM) surgical staging classification of endometriosis has been widely used to describe the degree, although it poorly correlates with fertility potential (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8). Women diagnosed with endometriosis may benefit from the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010 as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and intrauterine insemination) based on patient characteristics, rASRM staging and “least function” score of the adnexa (Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1609-15).

Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. “Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031).”

The treatment of endometriosis is directly related to the desire for and timing of fertility since therapy is often contraceptive, as opposed to surgery. Because endometriosis is exacerbated by estradiol, the mainstay of medical therapy is initially combined hormonal or progestin-only contraception as a means of reducing pelvic pain by reducing estradiol production and action, respectively. GnRH-agonist suppression of follicle stimulation hormone and luteinizing hormone remains the standard for inactivating endogenous estradiol. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved elagolix for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis – the first pill specifically approved for endometriosis pain relief. An off-label approach for women is letrozole, the aromatase inhibitor, to reduce circulating estradiol levels. Unfortunately, estradiol suppression cannot be used solely long term without add-back therapy, because of the risk of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms.

Excision of endometriomas adversely affects ovarian follicular reserve (as indicated by lower levels of anti-müllerian hormone and reduced ovarian antral follicle counts on ultrasound). For women who want to preserve their fertility, the potential benefits of surgery should be weighed against these negative effects. Surgical treatment of endometriosis in women without other identifiable infertility factors may improve rates of spontaneous pregnancy. In women with moderate to severe endometriosis, intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation may be of value, particularly with preceding GnRH-agonist therapy (J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2018;10[3]:158-73).

Despite the reduction in IVF outcomes in women with moderate to severe endometriosis, it remains unclear whether surgery improves the likelihood of pregnancy with IVF as does the concurrent use of prolonged GnRH agonist during IVF stimulation. (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Summary

• Medical therapy alone does not appear to improve fertility in endometriosis.
• Surgical treatment of endometriosis improves natural fertility, particularly in lower-stage endometriosis.
• EFI is a useful tool to predict postoperative natural fertility and assess the need for IVF.
• Despite advanced endometriosis reducing IVF outcomes, surgery or medical pretreatment to increase IVF success remains unproven.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Pain is classified as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3-6 months (“Classification of chronic pain” 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994). This universally accepted definition does not distinguish between physical and emotional pain. Categorically, pain is pain. Two prevalent chronic gynecologic diseases are closely related medically and emotionally. Forty percent to 50% of women with endometriosis have infertility; 30%-50% of women with infertility are found to have coexisting endometriosis. The approach to both is, typically, symptomatic treatment. In this month’s column, I examine the relationship between these ailments and how we can advise women on management.

Endometriosis is simply defined as the displacement of normal endometrial glands and stroma from their natural anatomical location to elsewhere in the body. With the recent identification of the disease in the spleen, endometriosis has been found in every organ system. Endometriosis is identified in 6%-10% of the general female population. The prevalence ranges from 2% to 11% among asymptomatic women and from 5% to 21% in women hospitalized for pelvic pain (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1-15). Compared with fertile women, infertile women are six to eight times more likely to have endometriosis (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Retrograde menstruation is the presumed theory for the origins of endometriosis, that is, the reflux of menstrual debris containing active endometrial cells through the fallopian tubes into the peritoneal cavity (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14:422-69). Because of the varied etiologies of the most common symptoms of endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and infertility, women visit, on average, seven physicians before being diagnosed (Fertil Steril. 2011;96:366). The delay in promptly identifying endometriosis is further impaired by the lack of specific biomarkers, awareness, and inadequate evaluation (N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1244-56).

The 2008 U.S. health care costs for endometriosis were approximately $4,000 per affected woman, analogous to the costs for other chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis (Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1292-9). The management of symptoms further increases the financial burden because of the effect of the disease on physical, mental, sexual, and social well-being, as well as productivity (Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:123).

We have known the paradoxical relationship between the stage of endometriosis and symptoms: Women with low-stage disease may present with severe pain and/or infertility but those with advanced-stage disease may be asymptomatic. Endometriotic cells and tissue elicit a localized immune and inflammatory response with the production of cytokines, chemokines, and prostaglandins. Given the usual intra-abdominal location and the small size of implants, endometriosis requires a surgical diagnosis, ideally with histopathology for confirmation. However, imaging – transvaginal ultrasound or MRI – has more than 90% sensitivity and specificity for identifying endometriomas (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2[2]:CD009591).

The effect of endometriosis on fertility, particularly in women with minimal to mild stages, is not clear, and many studies have been retrospective. Tubal factor infertility can be a result of endometriosis. Per the 2020 Cochrane Database Systemic Reviews (2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031), “Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis; no data were reported on live birth. There is moderate-quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only.” In women undergoing IVF, more advanced stages of endometriosis have reduced pregnancy outcomes as shown in recent meta-analyses (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:79-88).

The revised ASRM (rASRM) surgical staging classification of endometriosis has been widely used to describe the degree, although it poorly correlates with fertility potential (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8). Women diagnosed with endometriosis may benefit from the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010 as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and intrauterine insemination) based on patient characteristics, rASRM staging and “least function” score of the adnexa (Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1609-15).

Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. “Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031).”

The treatment of endometriosis is directly related to the desire for and timing of fertility since therapy is often contraceptive, as opposed to surgery. Because endometriosis is exacerbated by estradiol, the mainstay of medical therapy is initially combined hormonal or progestin-only contraception as a means of reducing pelvic pain by reducing estradiol production and action, respectively. GnRH-agonist suppression of follicle stimulation hormone and luteinizing hormone remains the standard for inactivating endogenous estradiol. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved elagolix for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis – the first pill specifically approved for endometriosis pain relief. An off-label approach for women is letrozole, the aromatase inhibitor, to reduce circulating estradiol levels. Unfortunately, estradiol suppression cannot be used solely long term without add-back therapy, because of the risk of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms.

Excision of endometriomas adversely affects ovarian follicular reserve (as indicated by lower levels of anti-müllerian hormone and reduced ovarian antral follicle counts on ultrasound). For women who want to preserve their fertility, the potential benefits of surgery should be weighed against these negative effects. Surgical treatment of endometriosis in women without other identifiable infertility factors may improve rates of spontaneous pregnancy. In women with moderate to severe endometriosis, intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation may be of value, particularly with preceding GnRH-agonist therapy (J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2018;10[3]:158-73).

Despite the reduction in IVF outcomes in women with moderate to severe endometriosis, it remains unclear whether surgery improves the likelihood of pregnancy with IVF as does the concurrent use of prolonged GnRH agonist during IVF stimulation. (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Summary

• Medical therapy alone does not appear to improve fertility in endometriosis.
• Surgical treatment of endometriosis improves natural fertility, particularly in lower-stage endometriosis.
• EFI is a useful tool to predict postoperative natural fertility and assess the need for IVF.
• Despite advanced endometriosis reducing IVF outcomes, surgery or medical pretreatment to increase IVF success remains unproven.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Are you among the hundreds of millions of people worldwide with low back pain? If so, you may be familiar with standard treatments like surgery, shots, medications, and spinal manipulations. But new research suggests the solution for the world’s leading cause of disability may lie in fixing how the brain and the body communicate.

Setting out to challenge traditional treatments for chronic back pain, scientists across Australia, Europe, and the United States came together to test the effectiveness of altering how neural networks recognize pain for new research published this week in JAMA.

The randomized clinical trial recruited two groups of 138 participants with chronic low back pain, testing one group with a novel method called graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) and the other with things like mock laser therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation.

The researchers found the RESOLVE 12-week training course resulted in a statistically significant improvement in pain intensity at 18 weeks.

“What we observed in our trial was a clinically meaningful effect on pain intensity and a clinically meaningful effect on disability. People were happier, they reported their backs felt better, and their quality of life was better,” the study’s lead author, James McAuley, PhD, said in a statement. “This is the first new treatment of its kind for back pain.”
 

Brainy talk

Communication between your brain and back changes over time when you have chronic lower back pain, leading the brain to interpret signals from the back differently and change how you move. It is thought that these neural changes make recovery from pain slower and more complicated , according to Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), a nonprofit research institute in Sydney.

“Over time, the back becomes less fit, and the way the back and brain communicate is disrupted in ways that seem to reinforce the notion that the back is vulnerable and needs protecting,” said Dr. McAuley, a professor at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and a NeuRA senior research scientist. “The treatment we devised aims to break this self-sustaining cycle.”

RESOLVE treatment focuses on improving this transformed brain-back communication by slowly retraining the body and the brain without the use of opioids or surgery. People in the study have reported improved quality of life 1 year later, according to Dr. McAuley.

The researchers said the pain improvement was “modest,” and the method will need to be tested on other patients and conditions. They hope to introduce this new treatment to doctors and physiotherapists within the next 6-9 months and have already enlisted partner organizations to start this process, according to NeuRA.

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

Are you among the hundreds of millions of people worldwide with low back pain? If so, you may be familiar with standard treatments like surgery, shots, medications, and spinal manipulations. But new research suggests the solution for the world’s leading cause of disability may lie in fixing how the brain and the body communicate.

Setting out to challenge traditional treatments for chronic back pain, scientists across Australia, Europe, and the United States came together to test the effectiveness of altering how neural networks recognize pain for new research published this week in JAMA.

The randomized clinical trial recruited two groups of 138 participants with chronic low back pain, testing one group with a novel method called graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) and the other with things like mock laser therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation.

The researchers found the RESOLVE 12-week training course resulted in a statistically significant improvement in pain intensity at 18 weeks.

“What we observed in our trial was a clinically meaningful effect on pain intensity and a clinically meaningful effect on disability. People were happier, they reported their backs felt better, and their quality of life was better,” the study’s lead author, James McAuley, PhD, said in a statement. “This is the first new treatment of its kind for back pain.”
 

Brainy talk

Communication between your brain and back changes over time when you have chronic lower back pain, leading the brain to interpret signals from the back differently and change how you move. It is thought that these neural changes make recovery from pain slower and more complicated , according to Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), a nonprofit research institute in Sydney.

“Over time, the back becomes less fit, and the way the back and brain communicate is disrupted in ways that seem to reinforce the notion that the back is vulnerable and needs protecting,” said Dr. McAuley, a professor at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and a NeuRA senior research scientist. “The treatment we devised aims to break this self-sustaining cycle.”

RESOLVE treatment focuses on improving this transformed brain-back communication by slowly retraining the body and the brain without the use of opioids or surgery. People in the study have reported improved quality of life 1 year later, according to Dr. McAuley.

The researchers said the pain improvement was “modest,” and the method will need to be tested on other patients and conditions. They hope to introduce this new treatment to doctors and physiotherapists within the next 6-9 months and have already enlisted partner organizations to start this process, according to NeuRA.

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

Are you among the hundreds of millions of people worldwide with low back pain? If so, you may be familiar with standard treatments like surgery, shots, medications, and spinal manipulations. But new research suggests the solution for the world’s leading cause of disability may lie in fixing how the brain and the body communicate.

Setting out to challenge traditional treatments for chronic back pain, scientists across Australia, Europe, and the United States came together to test the effectiveness of altering how neural networks recognize pain for new research published this week in JAMA.

The randomized clinical trial recruited two groups of 138 participants with chronic low back pain, testing one group with a novel method called graded sensorimotor retraining intervention (RESOLVE) and the other with things like mock laser therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation.

The researchers found the RESOLVE 12-week training course resulted in a statistically significant improvement in pain intensity at 18 weeks.

“What we observed in our trial was a clinically meaningful effect on pain intensity and a clinically meaningful effect on disability. People were happier, they reported their backs felt better, and their quality of life was better,” the study’s lead author, James McAuley, PhD, said in a statement. “This is the first new treatment of its kind for back pain.”
 

Brainy talk

Communication between your brain and back changes over time when you have chronic lower back pain, leading the brain to interpret signals from the back differently and change how you move. It is thought that these neural changes make recovery from pain slower and more complicated , according to Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), a nonprofit research institute in Sydney.

“Over time, the back becomes less fit, and the way the back and brain communicate is disrupted in ways that seem to reinforce the notion that the back is vulnerable and needs protecting,” said Dr. McAuley, a professor at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and a NeuRA senior research scientist. “The treatment we devised aims to break this self-sustaining cycle.”

RESOLVE treatment focuses on improving this transformed brain-back communication by slowly retraining the body and the brain without the use of opioids or surgery. People in the study have reported improved quality of life 1 year later, according to Dr. McAuley.

The researchers said the pain improvement was “modest,” and the method will need to be tested on other patients and conditions. They hope to introduce this new treatment to doctors and physiotherapists within the next 6-9 months and have already enlisted partner organizations to start this process, according to NeuRA.

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

Some medications are safer and more effective than others for treating spine-related pain in older patients, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.

Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.

However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.

Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.

“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.

“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.

The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
 

Recommendations, warnings

With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.

Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.

Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.

These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.

They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
 

‘Rational therapeutic choices’

Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.

Other findings include the following:

• Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
• Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
• Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.

However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.

Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.

“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.

“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.

They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.

The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some medications are safer and more effective than others for treating spine-related pain in older patients, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.

Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.

However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.

Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.

“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.

“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.

The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
 

Recommendations, warnings

With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.

Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.

Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.

These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.

They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
 

‘Rational therapeutic choices’

Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.

Other findings include the following:

• Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
• Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
• Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.

However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.

Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.

“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.

“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.

They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.

The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some medications are safer and more effective than others for treating spine-related pain in older patients, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.

Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.

However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.

Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.

“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.

“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.

The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
 

Recommendations, warnings

With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.

Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.

Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.

These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.

They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
 

‘Rational therapeutic choices’

Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.

Other findings include the following:

• Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
• Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
• Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.

However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.

Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.

“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.

“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.

They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.

The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with a history of depression who are also being treated with opioid analgesics have a lower risk for overdose and self-harm after taking antidepressants, new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed insurance claims for more than 200,000 adults with a history of depression. Of these, 8,200 experienced adverse events (AEs) during the year after initiation of opioid therapy.

However, the risk for an AE such as overdose and other forms of self-harm was reduced among patients who had been treated with antidepressants for at least 6 weeks.

The take-home message is that clinicians and health systems need to be more aware that individuals in pain are more likely to be depressed and at higher risk for AEs – so the depression should be treated “more liberally,” corresponding author Bradley Stein, MD, PhD, a practicing psychiatrist in Pittsburgh and director of the Rand Corporation Opioid Policy Center, told this news organization.

“If you are treating someone with pain, particularly chronic pain, it’s critically important to better assess their depression and not to attribute depressive symptoms only to pain,” Dr. Stein said.

The findings were published online  in Psychiatric Services.
 

Promising approach?

Opioid treatment for pain “complicates the interactions among pain, depression, and self-harm,” the investigators write. Individuals with depression receiving long-term opioid therapy are two to three times more likely to misuse opioids, compared with individuals who do not have depression.

Although comorbid depression “substantially increases overdose and suicide risk, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated among individuals with chronic pain,” the researchers note. They add that increasing access to depression treatment may be a “potentially promising approach to preventing overdoses and suicide” in these patients.

“We know that individuals using opioids who have a history of depression are more likely to have negative outcomes, such as overdoses and self-harm events,” Dr. Stein said. “We wanted to see whether antidepressants, which would treat depression in these individuals, would help with that.”

The researchers assessed a database of commercial insurance claims of adults with a history of depression who received opioids between 2007 and 2017 (n = 283,374). The data included 336,599 opioid treatment episodes.

To be included in the study, patients had to have been diagnosed with depression before they filled their first opioid prescription.

The “outcome of interest” was time from the beginning of an opioid episode until an adverse event, such as opioid poisoning, overdose of nonopioid controlled or illicit substances, or self-harm unrelated to overdose.

Participants were followed from the onset of the opioid episode until an AE occurred, loss to follow-up, or week 52, whichever came first.

The “key independent variable” was filling an antidepressant prescription. The patient’s sex and age were considered to be independent variables as well.
 

Teasing out antidepressant effect

Of participants with a history of depression treatment, 8,203 experienced at least one AE during the 12 months after treatment initiation (n = 47,486 AEs). Approximately half (50.8%) filled an antidepressant prescription at least once during the 12 months after the opioid episode began.

AEs were more likely among men than among women. The highest risk was in patients aged 18-24 years.

After adjusting for age and sex, participants who had received antidepressants had a greater risk for all adverse outcomes during the first 6 weeks of antidepressant treatment. However, those who had received antidepressants for 6 weeks or longer were at reduced risk for all adverse outcomes.

Consider CBT?

Andrew Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said clinicians “tend to think categorically and give people diagnoses that are clear-cut.” But neurobiologically, “it may be hard to distinguish where chronic pain ends and depression begins, or whether there’s some commonality.”

For patients with chronic pain and those taking opioids, “we need to be very attuned to the possibility or likelihood that they have major depression and other psychiatric diagnoses, like PTSD and anxiety disorders, which are very common,” said Dr. Saxon, who is also the director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. He was not involved with the current research.

He noted that treating those disorders “is a very important component of managing chronic pain.” However, “patients just starting antidepressants need to be carefully monitored when they’re getting stabilized on their antidepressants because they can have side effects, particularly early on, that can destabilize them.”

Dr. Saxon added that beyond pharmacotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pain might be an even better intervention for addressing both pain and depression.

Also commenting for this article, Brian Hurley, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and the medical director of the Division of Substance Abuse Prevention and Control for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, said: “In the context of the largest wave of overdose mortality in U.S. history, we know comparatively little about the impact of mental health interventions that mitigate overdose risks.”

This study “contributes important new information that treating depression with antidepressant medications reduces overdose and self-harm risks for people who are prescribed opioids,” said Dr. Hurley, who is also the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

It also “underscores the general importance of integrated mental health and substance use disorder treatment in both primary care and in mental health settings,” added Dr. Hurley, who was not involved with the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The investigators and commenters reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with a history of depression who are also being treated with opioid analgesics have a lower risk for overdose and self-harm after taking antidepressants, new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed insurance claims for more than 200,000 adults with a history of depression. Of these, 8,200 experienced adverse events (AEs) during the year after initiation of opioid therapy.

However, the risk for an AE such as overdose and other forms of self-harm was reduced among patients who had been treated with antidepressants for at least 6 weeks.

The take-home message is that clinicians and health systems need to be more aware that individuals in pain are more likely to be depressed and at higher risk for AEs – so the depression should be treated “more liberally,” corresponding author Bradley Stein, MD, PhD, a practicing psychiatrist in Pittsburgh and director of the Rand Corporation Opioid Policy Center, told this news organization.

“If you are treating someone with pain, particularly chronic pain, it’s critically important to better assess their depression and not to attribute depressive symptoms only to pain,” Dr. Stein said.

The findings were published online  in Psychiatric Services.
 

Promising approach?

Opioid treatment for pain “complicates the interactions among pain, depression, and self-harm,” the investigators write. Individuals with depression receiving long-term opioid therapy are two to three times more likely to misuse opioids, compared with individuals who do not have depression.

Although comorbid depression “substantially increases overdose and suicide risk, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated among individuals with chronic pain,” the researchers note. They add that increasing access to depression treatment may be a “potentially promising approach to preventing overdoses and suicide” in these patients.

“We know that individuals using opioids who have a history of depression are more likely to have negative outcomes, such as overdoses and self-harm events,” Dr. Stein said. “We wanted to see whether antidepressants, which would treat depression in these individuals, would help with that.”

The researchers assessed a database of commercial insurance claims of adults with a history of depression who received opioids between 2007 and 2017 (n = 283,374). The data included 336,599 opioid treatment episodes.

To be included in the study, patients had to have been diagnosed with depression before they filled their first opioid prescription.

The “outcome of interest” was time from the beginning of an opioid episode until an adverse event, such as opioid poisoning, overdose of nonopioid controlled or illicit substances, or self-harm unrelated to overdose.

Participants were followed from the onset of the opioid episode until an AE occurred, loss to follow-up, or week 52, whichever came first.

The “key independent variable” was filling an antidepressant prescription. The patient’s sex and age were considered to be independent variables as well.
 

Teasing out antidepressant effect

Of participants with a history of depression treatment, 8,203 experienced at least one AE during the 12 months after treatment initiation (n = 47,486 AEs). Approximately half (50.8%) filled an antidepressant prescription at least once during the 12 months after the opioid episode began.

AEs were more likely among men than among women. The highest risk was in patients aged 18-24 years.

After adjusting for age and sex, participants who had received antidepressants had a greater risk for all adverse outcomes during the first 6 weeks of antidepressant treatment. However, those who had received antidepressants for 6 weeks or longer were at reduced risk for all adverse outcomes.

Consider CBT?

Andrew Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said clinicians “tend to think categorically and give people diagnoses that are clear-cut.” But neurobiologically, “it may be hard to distinguish where chronic pain ends and depression begins, or whether there’s some commonality.”

For patients with chronic pain and those taking opioids, “we need to be very attuned to the possibility or likelihood that they have major depression and other psychiatric diagnoses, like PTSD and anxiety disorders, which are very common,” said Dr. Saxon, who is also the director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. He was not involved with the current research.

He noted that treating those disorders “is a very important component of managing chronic pain.” However, “patients just starting antidepressants need to be carefully monitored when they’re getting stabilized on their antidepressants because they can have side effects, particularly early on, that can destabilize them.”

Dr. Saxon added that beyond pharmacotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pain might be an even better intervention for addressing both pain and depression.

Also commenting for this article, Brian Hurley, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and the medical director of the Division of Substance Abuse Prevention and Control for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, said: “In the context of the largest wave of overdose mortality in U.S. history, we know comparatively little about the impact of mental health interventions that mitigate overdose risks.”

This study “contributes important new information that treating depression with antidepressant medications reduces overdose and self-harm risks for people who are prescribed opioids,” said Dr. Hurley, who is also the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

It also “underscores the general importance of integrated mental health and substance use disorder treatment in both primary care and in mental health settings,” added Dr. Hurley, who was not involved with the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The investigators and commenters reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with a history of depression who are also being treated with opioid analgesics have a lower risk for overdose and self-harm after taking antidepressants, new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed insurance claims for more than 200,000 adults with a history of depression. Of these, 8,200 experienced adverse events (AEs) during the year after initiation of opioid therapy.

However, the risk for an AE such as overdose and other forms of self-harm was reduced among patients who had been treated with antidepressants for at least 6 weeks.

The take-home message is that clinicians and health systems need to be more aware that individuals in pain are more likely to be depressed and at higher risk for AEs – so the depression should be treated “more liberally,” corresponding author Bradley Stein, MD, PhD, a practicing psychiatrist in Pittsburgh and director of the Rand Corporation Opioid Policy Center, told this news organization.

“If you are treating someone with pain, particularly chronic pain, it’s critically important to better assess their depression and not to attribute depressive symptoms only to pain,” Dr. Stein said.

The findings were published online  in Psychiatric Services.
 

Promising approach?

Opioid treatment for pain “complicates the interactions among pain, depression, and self-harm,” the investigators write. Individuals with depression receiving long-term opioid therapy are two to three times more likely to misuse opioids, compared with individuals who do not have depression.

Although comorbid depression “substantially increases overdose and suicide risk, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated among individuals with chronic pain,” the researchers note. They add that increasing access to depression treatment may be a “potentially promising approach to preventing overdoses and suicide” in these patients.

“We know that individuals using opioids who have a history of depression are more likely to have negative outcomes, such as overdoses and self-harm events,” Dr. Stein said. “We wanted to see whether antidepressants, which would treat depression in these individuals, would help with that.”

The researchers assessed a database of commercial insurance claims of adults with a history of depression who received opioids between 2007 and 2017 (n = 283,374). The data included 336,599 opioid treatment episodes.

To be included in the study, patients had to have been diagnosed with depression before they filled their first opioid prescription.

The “outcome of interest” was time from the beginning of an opioid episode until an adverse event, such as opioid poisoning, overdose of nonopioid controlled or illicit substances, or self-harm unrelated to overdose.

Participants were followed from the onset of the opioid episode until an AE occurred, loss to follow-up, or week 52, whichever came first.

The “key independent variable” was filling an antidepressant prescription. The patient’s sex and age were considered to be independent variables as well.
 

Teasing out antidepressant effect

Of participants with a history of depression treatment, 8,203 experienced at least one AE during the 12 months after treatment initiation (n = 47,486 AEs). Approximately half (50.8%) filled an antidepressant prescription at least once during the 12 months after the opioid episode began.

AEs were more likely among men than among women. The highest risk was in patients aged 18-24 years.

After adjusting for age and sex, participants who had received antidepressants had a greater risk for all adverse outcomes during the first 6 weeks of antidepressant treatment. However, those who had received antidepressants for 6 weeks or longer were at reduced risk for all adverse outcomes.

Consider CBT?

Andrew Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said clinicians “tend to think categorically and give people diagnoses that are clear-cut.” But neurobiologically, “it may be hard to distinguish where chronic pain ends and depression begins, or whether there’s some commonality.”

For patients with chronic pain and those taking opioids, “we need to be very attuned to the possibility or likelihood that they have major depression and other psychiatric diagnoses, like PTSD and anxiety disorders, which are very common,” said Dr. Saxon, who is also the director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. He was not involved with the current research.

He noted that treating those disorders “is a very important component of managing chronic pain.” However, “patients just starting antidepressants need to be carefully monitored when they’re getting stabilized on their antidepressants because they can have side effects, particularly early on, that can destabilize them.”

Dr. Saxon added that beyond pharmacotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pain might be an even better intervention for addressing both pain and depression.

Also commenting for this article, Brian Hurley, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and the medical director of the Division of Substance Abuse Prevention and Control for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, said: “In the context of the largest wave of overdose mortality in U.S. history, we know comparatively little about the impact of mental health interventions that mitigate overdose risks.”

This study “contributes important new information that treating depression with antidepressant medications reduces overdose and self-harm risks for people who are prescribed opioids,” said Dr. Hurley, who is also the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

It also “underscores the general importance of integrated mental health and substance use disorder treatment in both primary care and in mental health settings,” added Dr. Hurley, who was not involved with the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The investigators and commenters reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians who are sleep deprived have less empathy for patients who report pain – and they prescribe fewer analgesics, new research suggests.

In the first of two studies, resident physicians were presented with two hypothetical scenarios involving a patient who complains of pain. They were asked about their likelihood of prescribing pain medication. The test was given to one group of residents who were just starting their day and to another group who were at the end of their night shift after being on call for 26 hours.

Results showed that the night shift residents were less likely than their daytime counterparts to say they would prescribe pain medication to the patients.

In further analysis of discharge notes from more than 13,000 electronic records of patients presenting with pain complaints at hospitals in Israel and the United States, the likelihood of an analgesic being prescribed during the night shift was 11% lower in Israel and 9% lower in the United States, compared with the day shift.

“Pain management is a major challenge, and a doctor’s perception of a patient’s subjective pain is susceptible to bias,” coinvestigator David Gozal, MD, the Marie M. and Harry L. Smith Endowed Chair of Child Health, University of Missouri–Columbia, said in a press release.

“This study demonstrated that night shift work is an important and previously unrecognized source of bias in pain management, likely stemming from impaired perception of pain,” Dr. Gozal added.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

‘Directional’ differences

Senior investigator Alex Gileles-Hillel, MD, senior pediatric pulmonologist and sleep researcher at Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, said in an interview that physicians must make “complex assessments of patients’ subjective pain experience” – and the “subjective nature of pain management decisions can give rise to various biases.”

Dr. Gileles-Hillel has previously researched the cognitive toll of night shift work on physicians.

“It’s pretty established, for example, not to drive when sleep deprived because cognition is impaired,” he said. The current study explored whether sleep deprivation could affect areas other than cognition, including emotions and empathy.

The researchers used “two complementary approaches.” First, they administered tests to measure empathy and pain management decisions in 67 resident physicians at Hadassah Medical Centers either following a 26-hour night shift that began at 8:00 a.m. the day before (n = 36) or immediately before starting the workday (n = 31).

There were no significant differences in demographic, sleep, or burnout measures between the two groups, except that night shift physicians had slept less than those in the daytime group (2.93 vs. 5.96 hours).

Participants completed two tasks. In the empathy-for-pain task, they rated their emotional reactions to pictures of individuals in pain. In the empathy accuracy task, they were asked to assess the feelings of videotaped individuals telling emotional stories.

They were then presented with two clinical scenarios: a female patient with a headache and a male patient with a backache. Following that, they were asked to assess the magnitude of the patients’ pain and how likely they would be to prescribe pain medication.

In the empathy-for-pain task, physicians’ empathy scores were significantly lower in the night shift group than in the day group (difference, –0.83; 95% CI, –1.55 to –0.10; P = .026). There were no significant differences between the groups in the empathy accuracy task.

In both scenarios, physicians in the night shift group assessed the patient’s pain as weaker in comparison with physicians in the day group. There was a statistically significant difference in the headache scenario but not the backache scenario.

Need for naps?

The researchers then analyzed analgesic prescription patterns drawn from three datasets of discharge notes of patients presenting to the emergency department with pain complaints (n = 13,482) at two branches of Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center and the University of Missouri Health Center.

The researchers collected data, including discharge time, medications patients were prescribed upon discharge, and patients’ subjective pain rating on a scale of 0-10 on a visual analogue scale (VAS).

Although patients’ VAS scores did not differ with respect to time or shift, patients were discharged with significantly less prescribed analgesics during the night shift in comparison with the day shift.

Compromised safety

In a comment, Eti Ben Simon, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Human Sleep Science, University of California, Berkeley, called the study “an important contribution to a growing list of studies that reveal how long night shifts reduce overall safety” for both patients and clinicians.

“It’s time to abandon the notion that the human brain can function as normal after being deprived of sleep for 24 hours,” said Dr. Ben Simon, who was not involved with the research.

“This is especially true in medicine, where we trust others to take care of us and feel our pain. These functions are simply not possible without adequate sleep,” she added.

Also commenting, Kannan Ramar, MD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, suggested that being cognizant of these findings “may help providers to mitigate this bias” of underprescribing pain medications when treating their patients.

Dr. Ramar, who is also a critical care specialist, pulmonologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., was not involved with the research.

He noted that “further studies that systematically evaluate this further in a prospective and blinded way will be important.”

The research was supported in part by grants from the Israel Science Foundation, Joy Ventures, the Recanati Fund at the Jerusalem School of Business at the Hebrew University, and a fellowship from the Azrieli Foundation and received grant support to various investigators from the NIH, the Leda J. Sears Foundation, and the University of Missouri. The investigators, Ramar, and Ben Simon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians who are sleep deprived have less empathy for patients who report pain – and they prescribe fewer analgesics, new research suggests.

In the first of two studies, resident physicians were presented with two hypothetical scenarios involving a patient who complains of pain. They were asked about their likelihood of prescribing pain medication. The test was given to one group of residents who were just starting their day and to another group who were at the end of their night shift after being on call for 26 hours.

Results showed that the night shift residents were less likely than their daytime counterparts to say they would prescribe pain medication to the patients.

In further analysis of discharge notes from more than 13,000 electronic records of patients presenting with pain complaints at hospitals in Israel and the United States, the likelihood of an analgesic being prescribed during the night shift was 11% lower in Israel and 9% lower in the United States, compared with the day shift.

“Pain management is a major challenge, and a doctor’s perception of a patient’s subjective pain is susceptible to bias,” coinvestigator David Gozal, MD, the Marie M. and Harry L. Smith Endowed Chair of Child Health, University of Missouri–Columbia, said in a press release.

“This study demonstrated that night shift work is an important and previously unrecognized source of bias in pain management, likely stemming from impaired perception of pain,” Dr. Gozal added.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

‘Directional’ differences

Senior investigator Alex Gileles-Hillel, MD, senior pediatric pulmonologist and sleep researcher at Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, said in an interview that physicians must make “complex assessments of patients’ subjective pain experience” – and the “subjective nature of pain management decisions can give rise to various biases.”

Dr. Gileles-Hillel has previously researched the cognitive toll of night shift work on physicians.

“It’s pretty established, for example, not to drive when sleep deprived because cognition is impaired,” he said. The current study explored whether sleep deprivation could affect areas other than cognition, including emotions and empathy.

The researchers used “two complementary approaches.” First, they administered tests to measure empathy and pain management decisions in 67 resident physicians at Hadassah Medical Centers either following a 26-hour night shift that began at 8:00 a.m. the day before (n = 36) or immediately before starting the workday (n = 31).

There were no significant differences in demographic, sleep, or burnout measures between the two groups, except that night shift physicians had slept less than those in the daytime group (2.93 vs. 5.96 hours).

Participants completed two tasks. In the empathy-for-pain task, they rated their emotional reactions to pictures of individuals in pain. In the empathy accuracy task, they were asked to assess the feelings of videotaped individuals telling emotional stories.

They were then presented with two clinical scenarios: a female patient with a headache and a male patient with a backache. Following that, they were asked to assess the magnitude of the patients’ pain and how likely they would be to prescribe pain medication.

In the empathy-for-pain task, physicians’ empathy scores were significantly lower in the night shift group than in the day group (difference, –0.83; 95% CI, –1.55 to –0.10; P = .026). There were no significant differences between the groups in the empathy accuracy task.

In both scenarios, physicians in the night shift group assessed the patient’s pain as weaker in comparison with physicians in the day group. There was a statistically significant difference in the headache scenario but not the backache scenario.

Need for naps?

The researchers then analyzed analgesic prescription patterns drawn from three datasets of discharge notes of patients presenting to the emergency department with pain complaints (n = 13,482) at two branches of Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center and the University of Missouri Health Center.

The researchers collected data, including discharge time, medications patients were prescribed upon discharge, and patients’ subjective pain rating on a scale of 0-10 on a visual analogue scale (VAS).

Although patients’ VAS scores did not differ with respect to time or shift, patients were discharged with significantly less prescribed analgesics during the night shift in comparison with the day shift.

Compromised safety

In a comment, Eti Ben Simon, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Human Sleep Science, University of California, Berkeley, called the study “an important contribution to a growing list of studies that reveal how long night shifts reduce overall safety” for both patients and clinicians.

“It’s time to abandon the notion that the human brain can function as normal after being deprived of sleep for 24 hours,” said Dr. Ben Simon, who was not involved with the research.

“This is especially true in medicine, where we trust others to take care of us and feel our pain. These functions are simply not possible without adequate sleep,” she added.

Also commenting, Kannan Ramar, MD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, suggested that being cognizant of these findings “may help providers to mitigate this bias” of underprescribing pain medications when treating their patients.

Dr. Ramar, who is also a critical care specialist, pulmonologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., was not involved with the research.

He noted that “further studies that systematically evaluate this further in a prospective and blinded way will be important.”

The research was supported in part by grants from the Israel Science Foundation, Joy Ventures, the Recanati Fund at the Jerusalem School of Business at the Hebrew University, and a fellowship from the Azrieli Foundation and received grant support to various investigators from the NIH, the Leda J. Sears Foundation, and the University of Missouri. The investigators, Ramar, and Ben Simon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians who are sleep deprived have less empathy for patients who report pain – and they prescribe fewer analgesics, new research suggests.

In the first of two studies, resident physicians were presented with two hypothetical scenarios involving a patient who complains of pain. They were asked about their likelihood of prescribing pain medication. The test was given to one group of residents who were just starting their day and to another group who were at the end of their night shift after being on call for 26 hours.

Results showed that the night shift residents were less likely than their daytime counterparts to say they would prescribe pain medication to the patients.

In further analysis of discharge notes from more than 13,000 electronic records of patients presenting with pain complaints at hospitals in Israel and the United States, the likelihood of an analgesic being prescribed during the night shift was 11% lower in Israel and 9% lower in the United States, compared with the day shift.

“Pain management is a major challenge, and a doctor’s perception of a patient’s subjective pain is susceptible to bias,” coinvestigator David Gozal, MD, the Marie M. and Harry L. Smith Endowed Chair of Child Health, University of Missouri–Columbia, said in a press release.

“This study demonstrated that night shift work is an important and previously unrecognized source of bias in pain management, likely stemming from impaired perception of pain,” Dr. Gozal added.

The findings were published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

‘Directional’ differences

Senior investigator Alex Gileles-Hillel, MD, senior pediatric pulmonologist and sleep researcher at Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, said in an interview that physicians must make “complex assessments of patients’ subjective pain experience” – and the “subjective nature of pain management decisions can give rise to various biases.”

Dr. Gileles-Hillel has previously researched the cognitive toll of night shift work on physicians.

“It’s pretty established, for example, not to drive when sleep deprived because cognition is impaired,” he said. The current study explored whether sleep deprivation could affect areas other than cognition, including emotions and empathy.

The researchers used “two complementary approaches.” First, they administered tests to measure empathy and pain management decisions in 67 resident physicians at Hadassah Medical Centers either following a 26-hour night shift that began at 8:00 a.m. the day before (n = 36) or immediately before starting the workday (n = 31).

There were no significant differences in demographic, sleep, or burnout measures between the two groups, except that night shift physicians had slept less than those in the daytime group (2.93 vs. 5.96 hours).

Participants completed two tasks. In the empathy-for-pain task, they rated their emotional reactions to pictures of individuals in pain. In the empathy accuracy task, they were asked to assess the feelings of videotaped individuals telling emotional stories.

They were then presented with two clinical scenarios: a female patient with a headache and a male patient with a backache. Following that, they were asked to assess the magnitude of the patients’ pain and how likely they would be to prescribe pain medication.

In the empathy-for-pain task, physicians’ empathy scores were significantly lower in the night shift group than in the day group (difference, –0.83; 95% CI, –1.55 to –0.10; P = .026). There were no significant differences between the groups in the empathy accuracy task.

In both scenarios, physicians in the night shift group assessed the patient’s pain as weaker in comparison with physicians in the day group. There was a statistically significant difference in the headache scenario but not the backache scenario.

Need for naps?

The researchers then analyzed analgesic prescription patterns drawn from three datasets of discharge notes of patients presenting to the emergency department with pain complaints (n = 13,482) at two branches of Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center and the University of Missouri Health Center.

The researchers collected data, including discharge time, medications patients were prescribed upon discharge, and patients’ subjective pain rating on a scale of 0-10 on a visual analogue scale (VAS).

Although patients’ VAS scores did not differ with respect to time or shift, patients were discharged with significantly less prescribed analgesics during the night shift in comparison with the day shift.

Compromised safety

In a comment, Eti Ben Simon, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Human Sleep Science, University of California, Berkeley, called the study “an important contribution to a growing list of studies that reveal how long night shifts reduce overall safety” for both patients and clinicians.

“It’s time to abandon the notion that the human brain can function as normal after being deprived of sleep for 24 hours,” said Dr. Ben Simon, who was not involved with the research.

“This is especially true in medicine, where we trust others to take care of us and feel our pain. These functions are simply not possible without adequate sleep,” she added.

Also commenting, Kannan Ramar, MD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, suggested that being cognizant of these findings “may help providers to mitigate this bias” of underprescribing pain medications when treating their patients.

Dr. Ramar, who is also a critical care specialist, pulmonologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., was not involved with the research.

He noted that “further studies that systematically evaluate this further in a prospective and blinded way will be important.”

The research was supported in part by grants from the Israel Science Foundation, Joy Ventures, the Recanati Fund at the Jerusalem School of Business at the Hebrew University, and a fellowship from the Azrieli Foundation and received grant support to various investigators from the NIH, the Leda J. Sears Foundation, and the University of Missouri. The investigators, Ramar, and Ben Simon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Water immersion during labor and birth significantly reduced use of medications, maternal pain, and postpartum hemorrhage, compared with standard care with no water immersion, based on data from 36 studies including more than 150,000 women.

“Resting and laboring in water can reduce fear, anxiety, and pain perception; it helps optimize the physiology of childbirth through the release of endogenous endorphins and oxytocin,” and data from randomized, controlled trials have shown a reduced need for epidural analgesia with water immersion, Ethel Burns, PhD, of Oxford (England) Brookes University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have not shown an increased risk for adverse events for newborns following water birth, “There is a need to understand which clinical practices, when performed as part of water immersion care, result in the optimum outcomes for mother and newborn,” the researchers said.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in BMJ Open, the researchers identified studies published since 2000 that examined maternal or neonatal interventions and/or outcomes when birthing pools were used for labor and/or birth.

The primary objective was to compare intrapartum interventions and outcomes for water immersion during labor with standard care with no water immersion.

Water immersion generally involves the use of a birth pool for relaxation and pain relief in early labor, and some women proceed with immersion through the second stage of labor and delivery. Of the 36 included studies, 31 took place in a hospital setting, 4 in a midwife-led setting, and 1 in a mixed setting. Most of the studies (25) involved women who planned to have/had a water birth, and these studies included 151,742 women. Another seven studies including 1,901 women involved in water immersion for labor only, three studies including 3,688 women involved in water immersion during labor and water birth; the timing of water immersion was unclear in the remaining study of 215 women.

Overall, water immersion significantly reduced the use of epidurals (odds ratio, 0.17), injected opioids (OR, 0.22), and episiotomy (OR, 0.16). Maternal pain and postpartum hemorrhage also were significantly reduced with water immersion (OR, 0.24 and OR, 0.69, respectively).

Maternal satisfaction was significantly increased with water immersion, and the odds of an intact perineum increased as well (OR, 1.95 and OR, 1.48).

The overall odds of cord avulsion increased with water immersion (OR, 1.94), but the absolute risk was low, compared with births without water immersion (4.3 vs. 1.3 per 1,000). No significant differences in other identified neonatal outcomes were observed across the studies.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inconsistency of reporting on birth setting, care practices, interventions, and outcomes, and the inclusion of only three outcomes for meta-regression analysis, the researchers noted. In addition, only four studies were conducted in midwifery-led settings.

“This is important because birth pool use is most prevalent in midwifery-led settings,” the researchers wrote.” Evidence-based practice of water immersion requires research that reflects the context of care provision.

“We suggest that studies incorporate the following fundamentals to advance the evidence: birth pool description, clearly described maternal and obstetric characteristics, the birth setting, the care model and use of standardized definitions.”

Despite the limitations and need for additional research, the data overall support the potential benefits from water immersion births for healthy women and newborns, the researchers concluded.

A Clinical Report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in January 2022 advised against water immersion during the second stage of labor and delivery. According to the report, the potential for neonatal infections from organisms such as Legionella and Pseudomonas species, is low, but does exist, and could result in serious complications.
 

Education is essential

Increasing numbers of women are seeking home births and water births, Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Given the conflicting data and lack of data, it is important to be able to educate birthing mothers based on best available evidence,” said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study.

“I was not surprised by the findings, because the adverse outcomes that are of concern, such as neonatal sepsis, were not clearly addressed,” Dr. Platner said. Given that sepsis “is a rare outcome in the population of low-risk individuals, the study may not have been powered to assess for this. The findings of maternal pain and satisfaction being improved with water immersion are well known. ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] has also stated that water immersion during the first stage of labor is safe and can help with pain control.” 

On a practical level, “I think clinicians can use this guidance to discuss the potential benefits of water immersion in the first stages of labor, but would caution women regarding the unknown but possible risks of the water birth, given these findings are less clear,” Dr. Platner said.

“I think the findings regarding maternal outcomes are valid and consistent with the AAP/ACOG recommendations in terms of improving maternal pain control; however, more research is needed to determine the safety of the second stage of labor occurring in the water, given the potential for neonatal infection and respiratory distress, which could not be adequately addressed in this study,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

The study was supported by Oxford Brookes University. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Water immersion during labor and birth significantly reduced use of medications, maternal pain, and postpartum hemorrhage, compared with standard care with no water immersion, based on data from 36 studies including more than 150,000 women.

“Resting and laboring in water can reduce fear, anxiety, and pain perception; it helps optimize the physiology of childbirth through the release of endogenous endorphins and oxytocin,” and data from randomized, controlled trials have shown a reduced need for epidural analgesia with water immersion, Ethel Burns, PhD, of Oxford (England) Brookes University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have not shown an increased risk for adverse events for newborns following water birth, “There is a need to understand which clinical practices, when performed as part of water immersion care, result in the optimum outcomes for mother and newborn,” the researchers said.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in BMJ Open, the researchers identified studies published since 2000 that examined maternal or neonatal interventions and/or outcomes when birthing pools were used for labor and/or birth.

The primary objective was to compare intrapartum interventions and outcomes for water immersion during labor with standard care with no water immersion.

Water immersion generally involves the use of a birth pool for relaxation and pain relief in early labor, and some women proceed with immersion through the second stage of labor and delivery. Of the 36 included studies, 31 took place in a hospital setting, 4 in a midwife-led setting, and 1 in a mixed setting. Most of the studies (25) involved women who planned to have/had a water birth, and these studies included 151,742 women. Another seven studies including 1,901 women involved in water immersion for labor only, three studies including 3,688 women involved in water immersion during labor and water birth; the timing of water immersion was unclear in the remaining study of 215 women.

Overall, water immersion significantly reduced the use of epidurals (odds ratio, 0.17), injected opioids (OR, 0.22), and episiotomy (OR, 0.16). Maternal pain and postpartum hemorrhage also were significantly reduced with water immersion (OR, 0.24 and OR, 0.69, respectively).

Maternal satisfaction was significantly increased with water immersion, and the odds of an intact perineum increased as well (OR, 1.95 and OR, 1.48).

The overall odds of cord avulsion increased with water immersion (OR, 1.94), but the absolute risk was low, compared with births without water immersion (4.3 vs. 1.3 per 1,000). No significant differences in other identified neonatal outcomes were observed across the studies.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inconsistency of reporting on birth setting, care practices, interventions, and outcomes, and the inclusion of only three outcomes for meta-regression analysis, the researchers noted. In addition, only four studies were conducted in midwifery-led settings.

“This is important because birth pool use is most prevalent in midwifery-led settings,” the researchers wrote.” Evidence-based practice of water immersion requires research that reflects the context of care provision.

“We suggest that studies incorporate the following fundamentals to advance the evidence: birth pool description, clearly described maternal and obstetric characteristics, the birth setting, the care model and use of standardized definitions.”

Despite the limitations and need for additional research, the data overall support the potential benefits from water immersion births for healthy women and newborns, the researchers concluded.

A Clinical Report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in January 2022 advised against water immersion during the second stage of labor and delivery. According to the report, the potential for neonatal infections from organisms such as Legionella and Pseudomonas species, is low, but does exist, and could result in serious complications.
 

Education is essential

Increasing numbers of women are seeking home births and water births, Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Given the conflicting data and lack of data, it is important to be able to educate birthing mothers based on best available evidence,” said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study.

“I was not surprised by the findings, because the adverse outcomes that are of concern, such as neonatal sepsis, were not clearly addressed,” Dr. Platner said. Given that sepsis “is a rare outcome in the population of low-risk individuals, the study may not have been powered to assess for this. The findings of maternal pain and satisfaction being improved with water immersion are well known. ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] has also stated that water immersion during the first stage of labor is safe and can help with pain control.” 

On a practical level, “I think clinicians can use this guidance to discuss the potential benefits of water immersion in the first stages of labor, but would caution women regarding the unknown but possible risks of the water birth, given these findings are less clear,” Dr. Platner said.

“I think the findings regarding maternal outcomes are valid and consistent with the AAP/ACOG recommendations in terms of improving maternal pain control; however, more research is needed to determine the safety of the second stage of labor occurring in the water, given the potential for neonatal infection and respiratory distress, which could not be adequately addressed in this study,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

The study was supported by Oxford Brookes University. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Water immersion during labor and birth significantly reduced use of medications, maternal pain, and postpartum hemorrhage, compared with standard care with no water immersion, based on data from 36 studies including more than 150,000 women.

“Resting and laboring in water can reduce fear, anxiety, and pain perception; it helps optimize the physiology of childbirth through the release of endogenous endorphins and oxytocin,” and data from randomized, controlled trials have shown a reduced need for epidural analgesia with water immersion, Ethel Burns, PhD, of Oxford (England) Brookes University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have not shown an increased risk for adverse events for newborns following water birth, “There is a need to understand which clinical practices, when performed as part of water immersion care, result in the optimum outcomes for mother and newborn,” the researchers said.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in BMJ Open, the researchers identified studies published since 2000 that examined maternal or neonatal interventions and/or outcomes when birthing pools were used for labor and/or birth.

The primary objective was to compare intrapartum interventions and outcomes for water immersion during labor with standard care with no water immersion.

Water immersion generally involves the use of a birth pool for relaxation and pain relief in early labor, and some women proceed with immersion through the second stage of labor and delivery. Of the 36 included studies, 31 took place in a hospital setting, 4 in a midwife-led setting, and 1 in a mixed setting. Most of the studies (25) involved women who planned to have/had a water birth, and these studies included 151,742 women. Another seven studies including 1,901 women involved in water immersion for labor only, three studies including 3,688 women involved in water immersion during labor and water birth; the timing of water immersion was unclear in the remaining study of 215 women.

Overall, water immersion significantly reduced the use of epidurals (odds ratio, 0.17), injected opioids (OR, 0.22), and episiotomy (OR, 0.16). Maternal pain and postpartum hemorrhage also were significantly reduced with water immersion (OR, 0.24 and OR, 0.69, respectively).

Maternal satisfaction was significantly increased with water immersion, and the odds of an intact perineum increased as well (OR, 1.95 and OR, 1.48).

The overall odds of cord avulsion increased with water immersion (OR, 1.94), but the absolute risk was low, compared with births without water immersion (4.3 vs. 1.3 per 1,000). No significant differences in other identified neonatal outcomes were observed across the studies.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inconsistency of reporting on birth setting, care practices, interventions, and outcomes, and the inclusion of only three outcomes for meta-regression analysis, the researchers noted. In addition, only four studies were conducted in midwifery-led settings.

“This is important because birth pool use is most prevalent in midwifery-led settings,” the researchers wrote.” Evidence-based practice of water immersion requires research that reflects the context of care provision.

“We suggest that studies incorporate the following fundamentals to advance the evidence: birth pool description, clearly described maternal and obstetric characteristics, the birth setting, the care model and use of standardized definitions.”

Despite the limitations and need for additional research, the data overall support the potential benefits from water immersion births for healthy women and newborns, the researchers concluded.

A Clinical Report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in January 2022 advised against water immersion during the second stage of labor and delivery. According to the report, the potential for neonatal infections from organisms such as Legionella and Pseudomonas species, is low, but does exist, and could result in serious complications.
 

Education is essential

Increasing numbers of women are seeking home births and water births, Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Given the conflicting data and lack of data, it is important to be able to educate birthing mothers based on best available evidence,” said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study.

“I was not surprised by the findings, because the adverse outcomes that are of concern, such as neonatal sepsis, were not clearly addressed,” Dr. Platner said. Given that sepsis “is a rare outcome in the population of low-risk individuals, the study may not have been powered to assess for this. The findings of maternal pain and satisfaction being improved with water immersion are well known. ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] has also stated that water immersion during the first stage of labor is safe and can help with pain control.” 

On a practical level, “I think clinicians can use this guidance to discuss the potential benefits of water immersion in the first stages of labor, but would caution women regarding the unknown but possible risks of the water birth, given these findings are less clear,” Dr. Platner said.

“I think the findings regarding maternal outcomes are valid and consistent with the AAP/ACOG recommendations in terms of improving maternal pain control; however, more research is needed to determine the safety of the second stage of labor occurring in the water, given the potential for neonatal infection and respiratory distress, which could not be adequately addressed in this study,” Dr. Platner emphasized.

The study was supported by Oxford Brookes University. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.

Recently, a group of palliative and addiction medicine specialists developed strategies to help frontline clinicians manage patients with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid use disorder.

“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.

“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.

Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.

“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.

For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.

The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.

For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.

In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.

“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.

Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”

This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.

Recently, a group of palliative and addiction medicine specialists developed strategies to help frontline clinicians manage patients with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid use disorder.

“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.

“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.

Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.

“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.

For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.

The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.

For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.

In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.

“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.

Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”

This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Opioids remain a staple in pain management for cancer, but there is little guidance around how to treat patients who have a history of opioid misuse.

Recently, a group of palliative and addiction medicine specialists developed strategies to help frontline clinicians manage patients with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid use disorder.

“There is a tendency to ignore treatment of opioid use disorder in advanced cancer patients because people think: ‘Oh, this person has bigger fish to fry,’ but that’s not a very patient-centric way of looking at things,” senior author Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, with the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release.

“We know that opioid use disorder is a really important factor in quality of life, so addressing opioid addiction and prescription opioid misuse in people with advanced cancer is really critical,” Dr. Merlin added.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

To improve care for people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, the researchers first assessed how clinicians currently treat patients with opioid complexity.

Using an online Delphi platform, the team invited 120 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, pain management, and addiction medicine to weigh in on three common clinical scenarios – a patient with a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, a patient taking more opioids than prescribed, and a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

For a patient with cancer and a recent history of untreated opioid use disorder, regardless of prognosis, the panel deemed it appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone for pain but inappropriate to refer the patient to a methadone clinic. The panel felt that going to a methadone clinic would be too burdensome for a patient with advanced cancer and not possible for those with limited prognoses.

“This underscores the importance of access to [opioid use disorder] treatment in cancer treatment settings, including non–addiction specialists waivered to prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone and addiction specialists for more complex cases,” the authors wrote.

For a patient with untreated opioid use disorder, the panel deemed split-dose methadone (two to three times daily) appropriate in those with limited prognosis of weeks to months but was uncertain about the suitability of this approach for patients with longer prognoses of a year or longer.

The appropriateness of initiating treatment with a full-agonist opioid was considered uncertain for a patient with limited prognosis and inappropriate for a patient with longer prognosis.

For a patient with cancer pain and no medical history of opioid use disorder but taking more opioids than prescribed, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to increase monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids. The panel was not certain about whether to increase opioids based on the patient’s account of what they need or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

For a patient with no history of opioid use disorder who was prescribed traditional opioids for pain and had a positive urine drug test for nonprescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, the panel felt it was appropriate to continue opioids with close monitoring and inappropriate to taper opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone.

The researchers said that improving education around buprenorphine and cancer pain management in the context of opioid use disorder or misuse is needed.

In a related editorial, two experts noted that the patients considered in this “important article” require considerable time and expertise from an interdisciplinary team.

“It is important that cancer centers establish and fund such teams mainly as a safety measure for these patients and also as a major contribution to the care of all patients with cancer,” wrote Joseph Arthur, MD, and Eduardo Bruera, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

In the wider context, Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera highlighted how treatments for patients with advanced cancer have evolved over the past 3 decades, yet patients have continued to be given opioids to address cancer-related pain. Developing more sophisticated drugs that relieve pain without significant side effects or addictive properties is imperative.

Dr. Arthur and Dr. Bruera said the study authors “appropriately emphasize the value of delivering compassionate and expert care for these particularly complex cases and the importance of conducting research on the best ways to alleviate the suffering in this rapidly growing patient population.”

This research was supported by Cambia Health Foundation and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Dr. Merlin, Dr. Arthur, and Dr. Bruera reported no relevant disclosures.

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

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.