Pain

SAN FRANCISCO – Opioids may not always be necessary following elective colorectal surgery. That’s the message coming from a retrospective study of medical records at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, which found that over half of patients never even filled out their prescription after colorectal surgery.

“We found that over half of the patients took no opioid pills after discharge, and 60% of the prescribed pills were left over,” said David Meyer, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. Dr. Meyer is a surgical resident at the University of Massachusetts.

The team also used the results of their analysis to develop a guideline for the amount of opioid to prescribe following major colorectal surgery, with specific amounts of pills recommended based on the amount of opioid use during the last 24 hours of hospitalization.

“It shows a real interest in tailoring our postoperative care in pain management. They’re trying to find a way to hit a sweet spot to get patients the right amount of pain control,” said Jonathan Mitchem, MD, in an interview. Dr. Mitchem is an assistant professor at University of Missouri–Columbia, and comoderated the session where the research was presented.

The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of major elective colorectal procedures at their institution, including colectomy, rectal resection, and ostomy reversal. The analysis included 100 patients (55 female), with a mean age of 59 years. A total of 71% were opioid naive, meaning there was no evidence of an opioid prescription in the year prior to surgery. A total of 74% underwent a laparoscopic procedure, and 75% had a partial colectomy. The postoperative stay averaged 4.5 days.

The researchers converted in-hospital opioid use categories (IOUC) to equianalgesic 5-mg oxycodone pills (EOPs). In the last 24 hours before release, 53% of patients had no opioids at all (no IOUC, 0 EOPs), 25% received low amounts of opioids (low IOUC, 0.1-3.0 EOPs), and 22% high amounts (high IOUC, more than 3.1 EOPs). Overall, prescribed EOP was 17.5, and just 38% was consumed. These numbers were lowest in the no-IOUC group (15.7, 16%), followed by the low-IOUC group (16.0, 32%), and the high group (23.7, 79%; P less than .01).

The researchers then looked at the 85th percentile of EOPs for each group, and used that to develop a guideline for opioid prescription. For the no-IOUC group, they recommend 3 EOPs, for the low-IOUC group they recommend 12 EOPs, and for the high-IOUC group they recommend 30 EOPs.

The researchers examined various factors that might have influenced opioid use, correcting for whether the patient was opioid naive, case type, postoperative length of stay, and new ostomy creation. The only factor with a significant association for excessive opioid use was inflammatory bowel disease, which was linked to a nearly 900% increased risk of using more than the guideline amounts (adjusted odds ratio, 8.3; P less than .01; area under the curve, 0.85).

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center, and that patient opioid use was self-reported. The guidelines need to be validated prospectively.

No funding information was disclosed. Dr. Meyer and Dr. Mitchem had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Meyer D et al. Clinical Congress 2019, Abstract.

SAN FRANCISCO – Opioids may not always be necessary following elective colorectal surgery. That’s the message coming from a retrospective study of medical records at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, which found that over half of patients never even filled out their prescription after colorectal surgery.

“We found that over half of the patients took no opioid pills after discharge, and 60% of the prescribed pills were left over,” said David Meyer, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. Dr. Meyer is a surgical resident at the University of Massachusetts.

The team also used the results of their analysis to develop a guideline for the amount of opioid to prescribe following major colorectal surgery, with specific amounts of pills recommended based on the amount of opioid use during the last 24 hours of hospitalization.

“It shows a real interest in tailoring our postoperative care in pain management. They’re trying to find a way to hit a sweet spot to get patients the right amount of pain control,” said Jonathan Mitchem, MD, in an interview. Dr. Mitchem is an assistant professor at University of Missouri–Columbia, and comoderated the session where the research was presented.

The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of major elective colorectal procedures at their institution, including colectomy, rectal resection, and ostomy reversal. The analysis included 100 patients (55 female), with a mean age of 59 years. A total of 71% were opioid naive, meaning there was no evidence of an opioid prescription in the year prior to surgery. A total of 74% underwent a laparoscopic procedure, and 75% had a partial colectomy. The postoperative stay averaged 4.5 days.

The researchers converted in-hospital opioid use categories (IOUC) to equianalgesic 5-mg oxycodone pills (EOPs). In the last 24 hours before release, 53% of patients had no opioids at all (no IOUC, 0 EOPs), 25% received low amounts of opioids (low IOUC, 0.1-3.0 EOPs), and 22% high amounts (high IOUC, more than 3.1 EOPs). Overall, prescribed EOP was 17.5, and just 38% was consumed. These numbers were lowest in the no-IOUC group (15.7, 16%), followed by the low-IOUC group (16.0, 32%), and the high group (23.7, 79%; P less than .01).

The researchers then looked at the 85th percentile of EOPs for each group, and used that to develop a guideline for opioid prescription. For the no-IOUC group, they recommend 3 EOPs, for the low-IOUC group they recommend 12 EOPs, and for the high-IOUC group they recommend 30 EOPs.

The researchers examined various factors that might have influenced opioid use, correcting for whether the patient was opioid naive, case type, postoperative length of stay, and new ostomy creation. The only factor with a significant association for excessive opioid use was inflammatory bowel disease, which was linked to a nearly 900% increased risk of using more than the guideline amounts (adjusted odds ratio, 8.3; P less than .01; area under the curve, 0.85).

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center, and that patient opioid use was self-reported. The guidelines need to be validated prospectively.

No funding information was disclosed. Dr. Meyer and Dr. Mitchem had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Meyer D et al. Clinical Congress 2019, Abstract.

SAN FRANCISCO – Opioids may not always be necessary following elective colorectal surgery. That’s the message coming from a retrospective study of medical records at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, which found that over half of patients never even filled out their prescription after colorectal surgery.

“We found that over half of the patients took no opioid pills after discharge, and 60% of the prescribed pills were left over,” said David Meyer, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. Dr. Meyer is a surgical resident at the University of Massachusetts.

The team also used the results of their analysis to develop a guideline for the amount of opioid to prescribe following major colorectal surgery, with specific amounts of pills recommended based on the amount of opioid use during the last 24 hours of hospitalization.

“It shows a real interest in tailoring our postoperative care in pain management. They’re trying to find a way to hit a sweet spot to get patients the right amount of pain control,” said Jonathan Mitchem, MD, in an interview. Dr. Mitchem is an assistant professor at University of Missouri–Columbia, and comoderated the session where the research was presented.

The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of major elective colorectal procedures at their institution, including colectomy, rectal resection, and ostomy reversal. The analysis included 100 patients (55 female), with a mean age of 59 years. A total of 71% were opioid naive, meaning there was no evidence of an opioid prescription in the year prior to surgery. A total of 74% underwent a laparoscopic procedure, and 75% had a partial colectomy. The postoperative stay averaged 4.5 days.

The researchers converted in-hospital opioid use categories (IOUC) to equianalgesic 5-mg oxycodone pills (EOPs). In the last 24 hours before release, 53% of patients had no opioids at all (no IOUC, 0 EOPs), 25% received low amounts of opioids (low IOUC, 0.1-3.0 EOPs), and 22% high amounts (high IOUC, more than 3.1 EOPs). Overall, prescribed EOP was 17.5, and just 38% was consumed. These numbers were lowest in the no-IOUC group (15.7, 16%), followed by the low-IOUC group (16.0, 32%), and the high group (23.7, 79%; P less than .01).

The researchers then looked at the 85th percentile of EOPs for each group, and used that to develop a guideline for opioid prescription. For the no-IOUC group, they recommend 3 EOPs, for the low-IOUC group they recommend 12 EOPs, and for the high-IOUC group they recommend 30 EOPs.

The researchers examined various factors that might have influenced opioid use, correcting for whether the patient was opioid naive, case type, postoperative length of stay, and new ostomy creation. The only factor with a significant association for excessive opioid use was inflammatory bowel disease, which was linked to a nearly 900% increased risk of using more than the guideline amounts (adjusted odds ratio, 8.3; P less than .01; area under the curve, 0.85).

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center, and that patient opioid use was self-reported. The guidelines need to be validated prospectively.

No funding information was disclosed. Dr. Meyer and Dr. Mitchem had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Meyer D et al. Clinical Congress 2019, Abstract.

Patients with cancer who live in regions with high levels of opioid misuse may be undertreated for pain, according to investigators who studied opioid prescription patterns and cancer incidence in rural southwest Virginia.

Among 4,324 patients with cancer, only 22.16% were prescribed a Controlled Schedule II (C-II) prescription opioid medication at least 3 times in 1 year, from prescribers likely to be treating cancer pain. More than 60% of patients never received a C-II opioid prescription, reported Virginia T. LeBaron, PhD, of the University of Virginia School of Nursing in Charlottesville, and colleagues.

“A clearer view of geographic patterns and predictors of both POM [prescription opioid medication] prescribing and potential harms can inform targeted interventions and policy initiatives that achieve a balanced approach to POMs – ensuring access for patients in need while reducing risk to both patients and communities. Our research makes an important contribution by exploring how the current ‘opioid epidemic’ relates to rural patients with cancer,” they wrote. Their report is in Journal of Oncology Practice.

The investigators studied the confluence of disproportionately high cancer mortality rates and opioid fatality rates in rural southwest Virginia, in the heart of Appalachia.

They conducted a longitudinal, exploratory secondary analysis of data from the Commonwealth of Virginia All Payer Claims database to look at opioid prescribing patterns and explore whether concerns about opioid misuse could result in undertreatment of pain in cancer patients.

They looked at prescribing patterns at the patient, provider, and insurance claim levels, predictors of opioid prescription frequency, opioid-related harms and patterns related to opioid prescribing, cancer incidence, and fatalities.

They identified 4,324 patients with cancer, 958 of whom (22.16%) received a C-II opioid at least three times in any study year. The majority of patients were in the 45-64 age range, and approximately 88% were diagnosed with solid malignancies, with breast cancer and lung cancer being the most frequent diagnoses.

As noted, more than 60% of patients never received a C-II prescription.

“The large percentages of cancer patients never prescribed a C-II are concerning for a number of reasons, especially when we consider the results per year,” the investigators wrote. “First, the ‘no C-II’ patients remain over 80% of the total sample, each year, even after accounting for the upscheduling (from C-III to C-II) of commonly-prescribed hydrocodone products in 2014. Second, anecdotal data and emerging empirical evidence demonstrate that patients with legitimate pain needs, including patients with cancer, experience significant difficulty accessing POMs.”

They noted that regulations regarding opioid prescriptions have become increasingly strict since the end date of their analysis in 2015, suggesting that the number of patients with cancer who are not receiving C-II opioids today may be even higher.

They also pointed to evidence of prescription practices suggesting suboptimal pain management or potential patient harm, such as frequent prescription of opioid-acetaminophen combinations that are dose-limited due to acetaminophen toxicity; coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, which is not recommended under current prescribing guidelines; and infrequent use of deterrent formulations of C-II opioids such as crush-resistant tablets.

The study was supported by the University of Virginia Cancer Center, Cancer Control & Population Health Division and the Virginia Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission. The authors reported having no disclaimers or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeBaron VT et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Nov. 4. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00149.

Patients with cancer who live in regions with high levels of opioid misuse may be undertreated for pain, according to investigators who studied opioid prescription patterns and cancer incidence in rural southwest Virginia.

Among 4,324 patients with cancer, only 22.16% were prescribed a Controlled Schedule II (C-II) prescription opioid medication at least 3 times in 1 year, from prescribers likely to be treating cancer pain. More than 60% of patients never received a C-II opioid prescription, reported Virginia T. LeBaron, PhD, of the University of Virginia School of Nursing in Charlottesville, and colleagues.

“A clearer view of geographic patterns and predictors of both POM [prescription opioid medication] prescribing and potential harms can inform targeted interventions and policy initiatives that achieve a balanced approach to POMs – ensuring access for patients in need while reducing risk to both patients and communities. Our research makes an important contribution by exploring how the current ‘opioid epidemic’ relates to rural patients with cancer,” they wrote. Their report is in Journal of Oncology Practice.

The investigators studied the confluence of disproportionately high cancer mortality rates and opioid fatality rates in rural southwest Virginia, in the heart of Appalachia.

They conducted a longitudinal, exploratory secondary analysis of data from the Commonwealth of Virginia All Payer Claims database to look at opioid prescribing patterns and explore whether concerns about opioid misuse could result in undertreatment of pain in cancer patients.

They looked at prescribing patterns at the patient, provider, and insurance claim levels, predictors of opioid prescription frequency, opioid-related harms and patterns related to opioid prescribing, cancer incidence, and fatalities.

They identified 4,324 patients with cancer, 958 of whom (22.16%) received a C-II opioid at least three times in any study year. The majority of patients were in the 45-64 age range, and approximately 88% were diagnosed with solid malignancies, with breast cancer and lung cancer being the most frequent diagnoses.

As noted, more than 60% of patients never received a C-II prescription.

“The large percentages of cancer patients never prescribed a C-II are concerning for a number of reasons, especially when we consider the results per year,” the investigators wrote. “First, the ‘no C-II’ patients remain over 80% of the total sample, each year, even after accounting for the upscheduling (from C-III to C-II) of commonly-prescribed hydrocodone products in 2014. Second, anecdotal data and emerging empirical evidence demonstrate that patients with legitimate pain needs, including patients with cancer, experience significant difficulty accessing POMs.”

They noted that regulations regarding opioid prescriptions have become increasingly strict since the end date of their analysis in 2015, suggesting that the number of patients with cancer who are not receiving C-II opioids today may be even higher.

They also pointed to evidence of prescription practices suggesting suboptimal pain management or potential patient harm, such as frequent prescription of opioid-acetaminophen combinations that are dose-limited due to acetaminophen toxicity; coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, which is not recommended under current prescribing guidelines; and infrequent use of deterrent formulations of C-II opioids such as crush-resistant tablets.

The study was supported by the University of Virginia Cancer Center, Cancer Control & Population Health Division and the Virginia Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission. The authors reported having no disclaimers or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeBaron VT et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Nov. 4. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00149.

Patients with cancer who live in regions with high levels of opioid misuse may be undertreated for pain, according to investigators who studied opioid prescription patterns and cancer incidence in rural southwest Virginia.

Among 4,324 patients with cancer, only 22.16% were prescribed a Controlled Schedule II (C-II) prescription opioid medication at least 3 times in 1 year, from prescribers likely to be treating cancer pain. More than 60% of patients never received a C-II opioid prescription, reported Virginia T. LeBaron, PhD, of the University of Virginia School of Nursing in Charlottesville, and colleagues.

“A clearer view of geographic patterns and predictors of both POM [prescription opioid medication] prescribing and potential harms can inform targeted interventions and policy initiatives that achieve a balanced approach to POMs – ensuring access for patients in need while reducing risk to both patients and communities. Our research makes an important contribution by exploring how the current ‘opioid epidemic’ relates to rural patients with cancer,” they wrote. Their report is in Journal of Oncology Practice.

The investigators studied the confluence of disproportionately high cancer mortality rates and opioid fatality rates in rural southwest Virginia, in the heart of Appalachia.

They conducted a longitudinal, exploratory secondary analysis of data from the Commonwealth of Virginia All Payer Claims database to look at opioid prescribing patterns and explore whether concerns about opioid misuse could result in undertreatment of pain in cancer patients.

They looked at prescribing patterns at the patient, provider, and insurance claim levels, predictors of opioid prescription frequency, opioid-related harms and patterns related to opioid prescribing, cancer incidence, and fatalities.

They identified 4,324 patients with cancer, 958 of whom (22.16%) received a C-II opioid at least three times in any study year. The majority of patients were in the 45-64 age range, and approximately 88% were diagnosed with solid malignancies, with breast cancer and lung cancer being the most frequent diagnoses.

As noted, more than 60% of patients never received a C-II prescription.

“The large percentages of cancer patients never prescribed a C-II are concerning for a number of reasons, especially when we consider the results per year,” the investigators wrote. “First, the ‘no C-II’ patients remain over 80% of the total sample, each year, even after accounting for the upscheduling (from C-III to C-II) of commonly-prescribed hydrocodone products in 2014. Second, anecdotal data and emerging empirical evidence demonstrate that patients with legitimate pain needs, including patients with cancer, experience significant difficulty accessing POMs.”

They noted that regulations regarding opioid prescriptions have become increasingly strict since the end date of their analysis in 2015, suggesting that the number of patients with cancer who are not receiving C-II opioids today may be even higher.

They also pointed to evidence of prescription practices suggesting suboptimal pain management or potential patient harm, such as frequent prescription of opioid-acetaminophen combinations that are dose-limited due to acetaminophen toxicity; coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, which is not recommended under current prescribing guidelines; and infrequent use of deterrent formulations of C-II opioids such as crush-resistant tablets.

The study was supported by the University of Virginia Cancer Center, Cancer Control & Population Health Division and the Virginia Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission. The authors reported having no disclaimers or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeBaron VT et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Nov. 4. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00149.

THE CASE

A 45-year-old white woman presented to our emergency department (ED) with a 3-day history of fever, chills, diffuse abdominal pain, severe headache, and shortness of breath.

The patient’s medical and surgical history was notable for acromegaly secondary to pituitary microadenoma, pituitary resection, and complete thyroidectomy 4 years earlier. Her medications included lanreotide, levothyroxine, gabapentin, alprazolam, and zolpidem. She had no history of cardiac disease, diabetes mellitus, immunodeficiency, or injection drug use. Three months prior to presenting to the ED, she underwent an outpatient gynecologic procedure for insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (IUD) for menorrhagia.

In the ED, the patient had a fever (101.5°F) and an elevated white blood cell count of 13,600/mm³ (reference range, 4,000–10,000/mm³). Cardiac auscultation revealed a regular heart rate and rhythm, with normal S1 and S2 sounds without murmur. Electrocardiogram documented normal sinus rhythm with no abnormalities. The physical examination revealed a diffusely tender lower abdomen without rebound or guarding. A pelvic examination was not conducted, and there was no collection of a vaginal swab sample to test for gonorrhea, chlamydia, or group B Streptococcus (GBS). Further workups for infection, including urinalysis, lumbar puncture, and chest x-ray, all yielded normal results.

Shortly after she was discharged from the ED, the patient was called to return to the hospital after blood cultures grew GBS; she was admitted for treatment.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A diagnosis of sepsis secondary to GBS bacteremia was made. However, the source of the GBS bacteremia and the patient’s abdominal symptoms remained unclear. Further workup included computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen, pelvis, and head, and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain; all imaging revealed no acute findings. Blood work (chem-7 panel, complete blood count, human immunodeficiency virus testing) was unremarkable except for an elevated level of C-reactive protein of 90 mg/L (reference range, 0–10 mg/L).

Radiography confirmed that the IUD was in the correct intrauterine position. However, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) showed vegetations on the mitral and aortic valves, with preserved cardiac function. A diagnosis of GBS endocarditis was made, and infectious disease specialists were consulted. Because the patient had an anaphylactic allergy to penicillin, she was treated with intravenous vancomycin for 4 weeks. One month later, she had the IUD removed because of persistent abdominal pain.

DISCUSSION

Although the source of GBS bacteremia and endocarditis in our patient remained ­nondefinitive, the recent insertion of the IUD continued to be the suspected source and leading diagnosis.

Continue to: Other sources of GBS bacteremia...

Other sources of GBS bacteremia were unlikely based on the examination and imaging results. The patient’s abdominal exam was benign, and no intra-abdominal abscess was detected on CT. Although Streptococcus viridans, S bovis, and enterococcus are far more common pathogens for infective endocarditis,¹ there was no evidence of dental caries, gastrointestinal pathology, or urinary tract infection to suggest misidentification of bacteria.

Theoretically, GBS bacteremia after a gynecologic procedure is possible since GBS frequently colonizes the vagina.² However, most reports document transient rather than persistent bacteremia and/or endocarditis.^3,4

IUD insertion as a cause of bacteremia. The medical literature offers scant evidence of endocarditis or severe GBS bacteremia related to IUD insertion. Of 124 gynecology-related reports of infective endocarditis between 1946 and 1986, only 3 were associated with IUDs.⁵ All 3 women had underlying cardiac disease, and 2 of the 3 had identifiable pelvic infections.⁵

Among 12 case reports of endocarditis related to gynecologic procedures from 1985 to 2003, therapeutic abortion was the most common antecedent event, and no cases were related to IUD insertion.² Compared with cases reported before 1985, in these ­cases most patients (64%) did not have underlying valvular disease, and most had a subacute course with low mortality but high morbidity (8 of 11 patients had clinically significant emboli).² The study authors also mentioned a case of endocarditis following a Pap smear test, suggesting that minimally invasive procedures may result in infective endocarditis.²

THE TAKEAWAY

Our patient presented with fever, fatigue, and abdominal pain in the setting of recent IUD insertion. She was found to have GBS bacteremia with endocarditis based on TEE and positive blood culture growth. Her clinical situation was suspicious for a gynecologic source of bacteremia.

Continue to: There is no definitive way...

There is no definitive way to confirm that IUD insertion 3 months prior caused the GBS bacteremia. However, this case illustrates that it is important to consider a usually benign gynecologic procedure as the source of clinically significant persistent bacteremia.

Although the source of GBS bacteremia and endocarditis in our patient remained nondefinitive, the recent insertion of the IUD continued to be the suspected source.

Evidence is insufficient to recommend prophylactic antibiotic use prior to a gynecologic procedure, and it is not recommended by current practice guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the European Society of Cardiology.^6,7

This patient case raises our suspicion for IUD-related bacteremia as an adverse reaction in healthy women with recent IUD insertion who present with fever and diffuse abdominal pain without apparent signs of a pelvic infection. Prompt antibiotic treatment is necessary to prevent significant morbidity and mortality.

CORRESPONDENCE
Lauren Cowen, MD, 777 South Clinton Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 45-year-old white woman presented to our emergency department (ED) with a 3-day history of fever, chills, diffuse abdominal pain, severe headache, and shortness of breath.

The patient’s medical and surgical history was notable for acromegaly secondary to pituitary microadenoma, pituitary resection, and complete thyroidectomy 4 years earlier. Her medications included lanreotide, levothyroxine, gabapentin, alprazolam, and zolpidem. She had no history of cardiac disease, diabetes mellitus, immunodeficiency, or injection drug use. Three months prior to presenting to the ED, she underwent an outpatient gynecologic procedure for insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (IUD) for menorrhagia.

In the ED, the patient had a fever (101.5°F) and an elevated white blood cell count of 13,600/mm³ (reference range, 4,000–10,000/mm³). Cardiac auscultation revealed a regular heart rate and rhythm, with normal S1 and S2 sounds without murmur. Electrocardiogram documented normal sinus rhythm with no abnormalities. The physical examination revealed a diffusely tender lower abdomen without rebound or guarding. A pelvic examination was not conducted, and there was no collection of a vaginal swab sample to test for gonorrhea, chlamydia, or group B Streptococcus (GBS). Further workups for infection, including urinalysis, lumbar puncture, and chest x-ray, all yielded normal results.

Shortly after she was discharged from the ED, the patient was called to return to the hospital after blood cultures grew GBS; she was admitted for treatment.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A diagnosis of sepsis secondary to GBS bacteremia was made. However, the source of the GBS bacteremia and the patient’s abdominal symptoms remained unclear. Further workup included computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen, pelvis, and head, and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain; all imaging revealed no acute findings. Blood work (chem-7 panel, complete blood count, human immunodeficiency virus testing) was unremarkable except for an elevated level of C-reactive protein of 90 mg/L (reference range, 0–10 mg/L).

Radiography confirmed that the IUD was in the correct intrauterine position. However, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) showed vegetations on the mitral and aortic valves, with preserved cardiac function. A diagnosis of GBS endocarditis was made, and infectious disease specialists were consulted. Because the patient had an anaphylactic allergy to penicillin, she was treated with intravenous vancomycin for 4 weeks. One month later, she had the IUD removed because of persistent abdominal pain.

DISCUSSION

Although the source of GBS bacteremia and endocarditis in our patient remained ­nondefinitive, the recent insertion of the IUD continued to be the suspected source and leading diagnosis.

Continue to: Other sources of GBS bacteremia...

Other sources of GBS bacteremia were unlikely based on the examination and imaging results. The patient’s abdominal exam was benign, and no intra-abdominal abscess was detected on CT. Although Streptococcus viridans, S bovis, and enterococcus are far more common pathogens for infective endocarditis,¹ there was no evidence of dental caries, gastrointestinal pathology, or urinary tract infection to suggest misidentification of bacteria.

Theoretically, GBS bacteremia after a gynecologic procedure is possible since GBS frequently colonizes the vagina.² However, most reports document transient rather than persistent bacteremia and/or endocarditis.^3,4

IUD insertion as a cause of bacteremia. The medical literature offers scant evidence of endocarditis or severe GBS bacteremia related to IUD insertion. Of 124 gynecology-related reports of infective endocarditis between 1946 and 1986, only 3 were associated with IUDs.⁵ All 3 women had underlying cardiac disease, and 2 of the 3 had identifiable pelvic infections.⁵

Among 12 case reports of endocarditis related to gynecologic procedures from 1985 to 2003, therapeutic abortion was the most common antecedent event, and no cases were related to IUD insertion.² Compared with cases reported before 1985, in these ­cases most patients (64%) did not have underlying valvular disease, and most had a subacute course with low mortality but high morbidity (8 of 11 patients had clinically significant emboli).² The study authors also mentioned a case of endocarditis following a Pap smear test, suggesting that minimally invasive procedures may result in infective endocarditis.²

THE TAKEAWAY

Our patient presented with fever, fatigue, and abdominal pain in the setting of recent IUD insertion. She was found to have GBS bacteremia with endocarditis based on TEE and positive blood culture growth. Her clinical situation was suspicious for a gynecologic source of bacteremia.

Continue to: There is no definitive way...

There is no definitive way to confirm that IUD insertion 3 months prior caused the GBS bacteremia. However, this case illustrates that it is important to consider a usually benign gynecologic procedure as the source of clinically significant persistent bacteremia.

Although the source of GBS bacteremia and endocarditis in our patient remained nondefinitive, the recent insertion of the IUD continued to be the suspected source.

Evidence is insufficient to recommend prophylactic antibiotic use prior to a gynecologic procedure, and it is not recommended by current practice guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the European Society of Cardiology.^6,7

This patient case raises our suspicion for IUD-related bacteremia as an adverse reaction in healthy women with recent IUD insertion who present with fever and diffuse abdominal pain without apparent signs of a pelvic infection. Prompt antibiotic treatment is necessary to prevent significant morbidity and mortality.

CORRESPONDENCE
Lauren Cowen, MD, 777 South Clinton Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 45-year-old white woman presented to our emergency department (ED) with a 3-day history of fever, chills, diffuse abdominal pain, severe headache, and shortness of breath.

The patient’s medical and surgical history was notable for acromegaly secondary to pituitary microadenoma, pituitary resection, and complete thyroidectomy 4 years earlier. Her medications included lanreotide, levothyroxine, gabapentin, alprazolam, and zolpidem. She had no history of cardiac disease, diabetes mellitus, immunodeficiency, or injection drug use. Three months prior to presenting to the ED, she underwent an outpatient gynecologic procedure for insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (IUD) for menorrhagia.

In the ED, the patient had a fever (101.5°F) and an elevated white blood cell count of 13,600/mm³ (reference range, 4,000–10,000/mm³). Cardiac auscultation revealed a regular heart rate and rhythm, with normal S1 and S2 sounds without murmur. Electrocardiogram documented normal sinus rhythm with no abnormalities. The physical examination revealed a diffusely tender lower abdomen without rebound or guarding. A pelvic examination was not conducted, and there was no collection of a vaginal swab sample to test for gonorrhea, chlamydia, or group B Streptococcus (GBS). Further workups for infection, including urinalysis, lumbar puncture, and chest x-ray, all yielded normal results.

Shortly after she was discharged from the ED, the patient was called to return to the hospital after blood cultures grew GBS; she was admitted for treatment.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A diagnosis of sepsis secondary to GBS bacteremia was made. However, the source of the GBS bacteremia and the patient’s abdominal symptoms remained unclear. Further workup included computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen, pelvis, and head, and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain; all imaging revealed no acute findings. Blood work (chem-7 panel, complete blood count, human immunodeficiency virus testing) was unremarkable except for an elevated level of C-reactive protein of 90 mg/L (reference range, 0–10 mg/L).

Radiography confirmed that the IUD was in the correct intrauterine position. However, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) showed vegetations on the mitral and aortic valves, with preserved cardiac function. A diagnosis of GBS endocarditis was made, and infectious disease specialists were consulted. Because the patient had an anaphylactic allergy to penicillin, she was treated with intravenous vancomycin for 4 weeks. One month later, she had the IUD removed because of persistent abdominal pain.

DISCUSSION

Although the source of GBS bacteremia and endocarditis in our patient remained ­nondefinitive, the recent insertion of the IUD continued to be the suspected source and leading diagnosis.

Continue to: Other sources of GBS bacteremia...

Other sources of GBS bacteremia were unlikely based on the examination and imaging results. The patient’s abdominal exam was benign, and no intra-abdominal abscess was detected on CT. Although Streptococcus viridans, S bovis, and enterococcus are far more common pathogens for infective endocarditis,¹ there was no evidence of dental caries, gastrointestinal pathology, or urinary tract infection to suggest misidentification of bacteria.

Theoretically, GBS bacteremia after a gynecologic procedure is possible since GBS frequently colonizes the vagina.² However, most reports document transient rather than persistent bacteremia and/or endocarditis.^3,4

IUD insertion as a cause of bacteremia. The medical literature offers scant evidence of endocarditis or severe GBS bacteremia related to IUD insertion. Of 124 gynecology-related reports of infective endocarditis between 1946 and 1986, only 3 were associated with IUDs.⁵ All 3 women had underlying cardiac disease, and 2 of the 3 had identifiable pelvic infections.⁵

Among 12 case reports of endocarditis related to gynecologic procedures from 1985 to 2003, therapeutic abortion was the most common antecedent event, and no cases were related to IUD insertion.² Compared with cases reported before 1985, in these ­cases most patients (64%) did not have underlying valvular disease, and most had a subacute course with low mortality but high morbidity (8 of 11 patients had clinically significant emboli).² The study authors also mentioned a case of endocarditis following a Pap smear test, suggesting that minimally invasive procedures may result in infective endocarditis.²

THE TAKEAWAY

Our patient presented with fever, fatigue, and abdominal pain in the setting of recent IUD insertion. She was found to have GBS bacteremia with endocarditis based on TEE and positive blood culture growth. Her clinical situation was suspicious for a gynecologic source of bacteremia.

Continue to: There is no definitive way...

There is no definitive way to confirm that IUD insertion 3 months prior caused the GBS bacteremia. However, this case illustrates that it is important to consider a usually benign gynecologic procedure as the source of clinically significant persistent bacteremia.

Although the source of GBS bacteremia and endocarditis in our patient remained nondefinitive, the recent insertion of the IUD continued to be the suspected source.

Evidence is insufficient to recommend prophylactic antibiotic use prior to a gynecologic procedure, and it is not recommended by current practice guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the European Society of Cardiology.^6,7

This patient case raises our suspicion for IUD-related bacteremia as an adverse reaction in healthy women with recent IUD insertion who present with fever and diffuse abdominal pain without apparent signs of a pelvic infection. Prompt antibiotic treatment is necessary to prevent significant morbidity and mortality.

CORRESPONDENCE
Lauren Cowen, MD, 777 South Clinton Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620; [email protected]

Researchers have developed models that successfully predict persistent postoperative pain (PPP) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) two-thirds of the time. Major risk factors include pre-operative pain, sensory testing results, anxiety and anticipated pain.

“The results of this study provide some basis for the identification of patients at risk of PPP after TKA and highlight several modifiable factors that may be targeted by clinicians in an attempt to reduce the risk of developing PPP,” write the authors of the study, which appeared in the British Journal of Anaesthesia.

The authors, led by David Rice, PhD, of Auckland University of Technology, note that moderate to severe levels of PPP affect an estimated 10%-34% of patients at least 3 months after TKA surgery. “PPP adversely affects quality of life, is the most important predictor of patient dissatisfaction after TKA, and is a common reason for undergoing revision surgery.”

The researchers, who launched the study to gain insight into the risk factors that can predict PPP, recruited 300 New Zealand volunteers (average age = 69, 48% female, 92% white, average body mass index [BMI] = 31 kg/m²) to be surveyed before and after TKA surgery. They monitored pain and tracked a long list of possible risk factors including psychological traits (such as anxiety, pain catastrophizing and depression), physical traits (such as gender, BMI), and surgical traits (such as total surgery time).

At 6 months, 21% of 291 patients reported moderate to severe pain, and the percentage fell to 16% in 288 patients at 12 months.

The researchers developed two models that successfully predicted moderate-to-severe PPP.

The 6-month model relied on higher levels of preoperative pain intensity, temporal summation (a statistic that’s based on quantitative sensory testing), trait anxiety (a measure of individual anxiety level), and expected pain. It correctly predicted moderate to severe PPP 66% of the time (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.70, sensitivity = 0.72, specificity = 0.64).

The 12-month model relied on higher levels of all the risk factors except for temporal summation and correctly predicted moderate-to-severe PPP 66% of the time (AUC = 0.66, sensitivity = 0.61, specificity = 0.67).

The researchers noted that other research has linked trait anxiety and expected pain to PPP. In regard to anxiety, “cognitive behavioral interventions in the perioperative period aimed at reducing the threat value of surgery and of postoperative pain, improving patients’ coping strategies, and enhancing self-efficacy might help to reduce the risk of PPP after TKA,” the researchers write. “Furthermore, there is some evidence that anxiolytic medications can diminish perioperative anxiety and reduce APOP [acute postoperative pain] although its effects on PPP are unclear.”

Moving forward, the authors write, “strategies to minimize intraoperative nerve injury, reduce preoperative pain intensity, and address preoperative psychological factors such as expected pain and anxiety may lead to improved outcomes after TKA and should be explored.”

The Australia New Zealand College of Anesthetists and Auckland University of Technology funded the study. The study authors report no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Rice D et al. Br J Anaesth 2018;804-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2018.05.070.

Researchers have developed models that successfully predict persistent postoperative pain (PPP) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) two-thirds of the time. Major risk factors include pre-operative pain, sensory testing results, anxiety and anticipated pain.

“The results of this study provide some basis for the identification of patients at risk of PPP after TKA and highlight several modifiable factors that may be targeted by clinicians in an attempt to reduce the risk of developing PPP,” write the authors of the study, which appeared in the British Journal of Anaesthesia.

The authors, led by David Rice, PhD, of Auckland University of Technology, note that moderate to severe levels of PPP affect an estimated 10%-34% of patients at least 3 months after TKA surgery. “PPP adversely affects quality of life, is the most important predictor of patient dissatisfaction after TKA, and is a common reason for undergoing revision surgery.”

The researchers, who launched the study to gain insight into the risk factors that can predict PPP, recruited 300 New Zealand volunteers (average age = 69, 48% female, 92% white, average body mass index [BMI] = 31 kg/m²) to be surveyed before and after TKA surgery. They monitored pain and tracked a long list of possible risk factors including psychological traits (such as anxiety, pain catastrophizing and depression), physical traits (such as gender, BMI), and surgical traits (such as total surgery time).

At 6 months, 21% of 291 patients reported moderate to severe pain, and the percentage fell to 16% in 288 patients at 12 months.

The researchers developed two models that successfully predicted moderate-to-severe PPP.

The 6-month model relied on higher levels of preoperative pain intensity, temporal summation (a statistic that’s based on quantitative sensory testing), trait anxiety (a measure of individual anxiety level), and expected pain. It correctly predicted moderate to severe PPP 66% of the time (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.70, sensitivity = 0.72, specificity = 0.64).

The 12-month model relied on higher levels of all the risk factors except for temporal summation and correctly predicted moderate-to-severe PPP 66% of the time (AUC = 0.66, sensitivity = 0.61, specificity = 0.67).

The researchers noted that other research has linked trait anxiety and expected pain to PPP. In regard to anxiety, “cognitive behavioral interventions in the perioperative period aimed at reducing the threat value of surgery and of postoperative pain, improving patients’ coping strategies, and enhancing self-efficacy might help to reduce the risk of PPP after TKA,” the researchers write. “Furthermore, there is some evidence that anxiolytic medications can diminish perioperative anxiety and reduce APOP [acute postoperative pain] although its effects on PPP are unclear.”

Moving forward, the authors write, “strategies to minimize intraoperative nerve injury, reduce preoperative pain intensity, and address preoperative psychological factors such as expected pain and anxiety may lead to improved outcomes after TKA and should be explored.”

The Australia New Zealand College of Anesthetists and Auckland University of Technology funded the study. The study authors report no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Rice D et al. Br J Anaesth 2018;804-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2018.05.070.

Researchers have developed models that successfully predict persistent postoperative pain (PPP) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) two-thirds of the time. Major risk factors include pre-operative pain, sensory testing results, anxiety and anticipated pain.

“The results of this study provide some basis for the identification of patients at risk of PPP after TKA and highlight several modifiable factors that may be targeted by clinicians in an attempt to reduce the risk of developing PPP,” write the authors of the study, which appeared in the British Journal of Anaesthesia.

The authors, led by David Rice, PhD, of Auckland University of Technology, note that moderate to severe levels of PPP affect an estimated 10%-34% of patients at least 3 months after TKA surgery. “PPP adversely affects quality of life, is the most important predictor of patient dissatisfaction after TKA, and is a common reason for undergoing revision surgery.”

The researchers, who launched the study to gain insight into the risk factors that can predict PPP, recruited 300 New Zealand volunteers (average age = 69, 48% female, 92% white, average body mass index [BMI] = 31 kg/m²) to be surveyed before and after TKA surgery. They monitored pain and tracked a long list of possible risk factors including psychological traits (such as anxiety, pain catastrophizing and depression), physical traits (such as gender, BMI), and surgical traits (such as total surgery time).

At 6 months, 21% of 291 patients reported moderate to severe pain, and the percentage fell to 16% in 288 patients at 12 months.

The researchers developed two models that successfully predicted moderate-to-severe PPP.

The 6-month model relied on higher levels of preoperative pain intensity, temporal summation (a statistic that’s based on quantitative sensory testing), trait anxiety (a measure of individual anxiety level), and expected pain. It correctly predicted moderate to severe PPP 66% of the time (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.70, sensitivity = 0.72, specificity = 0.64).

The 12-month model relied on higher levels of all the risk factors except for temporal summation and correctly predicted moderate-to-severe PPP 66% of the time (AUC = 0.66, sensitivity = 0.61, specificity = 0.67).

The researchers noted that other research has linked trait anxiety and expected pain to PPP. In regard to anxiety, “cognitive behavioral interventions in the perioperative period aimed at reducing the threat value of surgery and of postoperative pain, improving patients’ coping strategies, and enhancing self-efficacy might help to reduce the risk of PPP after TKA,” the researchers write. “Furthermore, there is some evidence that anxiolytic medications can diminish perioperative anxiety and reduce APOP [acute postoperative pain] although its effects on PPP are unclear.”

Moving forward, the authors write, “strategies to minimize intraoperative nerve injury, reduce preoperative pain intensity, and address preoperative psychological factors such as expected pain and anxiety may lead to improved outcomes after TKA and should be explored.”

The Australia New Zealand College of Anesthetists and Auckland University of Technology funded the study. The study authors report no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Rice D et al. Br J Anaesth 2018;804-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2018.05.070.

Adiposis dolorosa (AD), or Dercum disease, is a rare disorder that was first described in 1888 and characterized by the National Organization of Rare Disorders (NORD) as a chronic pain condition of the adipose tissue generally found in patients who are overweight or obese.^1,2 AD is more common in females aged 35 to 50 years and proposed to be a disease of postmenopausal women, though no prevalence studies exist.² The etiology remains unclear.² Several theories have been proposed, including endocrine and nervous system dysfunction, adipose tissue dysregulation, or pressure on peripheral nerves and chronic inflammation.^2-4 Genetic, autoimmune, and trauma also have been proposed as a mechanism for developing the disease. Treatment modalities focusing on narcotic analgesics have been ineffective in long-term management.³

The objective of the case presentation is to report a variety of approaches for AD and their relative successes at pain control in order to assist other medical professionals who may come across patients with this rare condition.

Case Presentation

A 53-year-old male with a history of blast exposure-related traumatic brain injury, subsequent stroke with residual left hemiparesis, and seizure disorder presented with a 10-year history of nodule formation in his lower extremities causing restriction of motion and pain. The patient had previously undergone lower extremity fasciotomies for compartment syndrome with minimal pain relief. In addition, nodules over his abdomen and chest wall had been increasing over the past 5 years. He also experienced worsening fatigue, cramping, tightness, and paresthesias of the affected areas during this time. Erythema and temperature allodynia were noted in addition to an 80-pound weight gain. From the above symptoms and nodule excision showing histologic signs of lipomatous growth, a diagnosis of AD was made.

The following constitutes the approximate timetable of his treatments for 9 years. He was first diagnosed incidentally at the beginning of this period with AD during an electrodiagnostic examination. He had noticed the lipomas when he was in his 30s, but initially they were not painful. He was referred for treatment of pain to the physical medicine and rehabilitation department.

For the next 3 years, he was treated with prolotherapy. Five percent dextrose in water was injected around many of the painful lipomas in the upper extremities. He noted after the second round of neural prolotherapy that he had reduced swelling of his upper extremities and the lipomas decreased in size. He experienced mild improvement in pain and functional usage of his arms.

He continued to receive neural prolotherapy into the nodules in the arms, legs, abdomen, and chest wall. The number of painful nodules continued to increase, and the patient was started on hydrocodone 10 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (1 tablet every 6 hours as needed) and methadone for pain relief. He was initially started on 5 mg per day of methadone and then was increased in a stepwise, gradual fashion to 10 mg in the morning and 15 mg in the evening. He transitioned to morphine sulfate, which was increased to a maximum dose of 45 mg twice daily. This medication was slowly tapered due to adverse effects (AEs), including sedation.

After weaning off morphine sulfate, the patient was started on lidocaine infusions every 3 months. Each infusion provided at least 50% pain reduction for 6 to 8 weeks. He was approved by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to have Vaser (Bausch Health, Laval, Canada) minimally invasive ultrasound liposuction treatment, performed at an outside facility. The patient was satisfied with the pain relief that he received and noted that the number of lipomas greatly diminished. However, due to funding issues, this treatment was discontinued after several months.

The patient had moderately good pain relief with methadone 5 mg in the morning, and 15 mg in the evening. However, the patient reported significant somnolence during the daytime with the regimen. Attempts to wean the patient off methadone was met with uncontrollable daytime pain. With suboptimal oral pain regimen, difficulty obtaining Vaser treatments, and limitation in frequency of neural prolotherapy, the decision was made to initiate 12 treatments of Calmare (Fairfield, CT) cutaneous electrostimulation.

During his first treatment, he had the electrodes placed on his lower extremities. The pre- and posttreatment 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) scores were 9 and 0, respectively, after the first visit. The position of the electrodes varied, depending on the location of his pain, including upper extremities and abdominal wall. During the treatment course, the patient experienced an improvement in subjective functional status. He was able to sleep in the same bed as his wife, shake hands without severe pain, and walk .25 mile, all of which he was unable to do before the electrostimulative treatment. He also reported overall improvement in emotional well-being, resumption of his hobbies (eg, playing the guitar), and social engagement. Methadone was successfully weaned off during this trial without breakthrough pain. This improvement in pain and functional status continued for several weeks; however, he had an exacerbation of his pain following a long plane flight. Due to uncertain reliability of pain relief with the procedure, the pain management service initiated a regimen of methadone 10 mg twice daily to be initiated when a procedure does not provide the desired duration of pain relief and gradually discontinued following the next interventional procedure.

The patient continued a regimen that included lidocaine infusions, neural prolotherapy, Calmare electrostimulative therapy, as well as lymphedema massage. Additionally, he began receiving weekly acupuncture treatments. He started with traditional full body acupuncture and then transitioned to battlefield acupuncture (BFA). Each acupuncture treatment provided about 50% improvement in pain on the VAS, and improved sleep for 3 days posttreatment.

However, after 18 months of the above treatment protocol, the patient experienced a general tonic-clonic seizure at home. Due to concern for the lowered seizure threshold, lidocaine infusions and methadone were discontinued. Long-acting oral morphine was initiated. The patient continued Calmare treatments and neural prolotherapy after a seizure-free interval. This regimen provided the patient with temporary pain relief but for a shorter duration than prior interventions.

Ketamine infusions were eventually initiated about 5 years after the diagnosis of AD was made, with postprocedure pain as 0/10 on the VAS. Pain relief was sustained for 3 months, with the notable AEs of hallucinations in the immediate postinfusion period. Administration consisted of the following: 500 mg of ketamine in a 500 mL bag of 0.9% NaCl. A 60-mg slow IV push was given followed by 60 mg/h increased every 15 min by 10 mg/h for a maximum dose of 150 mg/h. In a single visit the maximum total dose of ketamine administered was 500 mg. The protocol, which usually delivered 200 mg in a visit but was increased to 500 mg because the 200-mg dose was ineffective, was based on protocols at other institutions to accommodate the level of monitoring available in the Interventional Pain Clinic. The clinic also developed an infusion protocol with at least 1 month between treatments. The patient continues to undergo scheduled ketamine infusions every 14 weeks in addition to monthly BFA. The patient reported near total pain relief for about a month following ketamine infusion, with about 3 months of sustained pain relief. Each BFA session continues to provide 3 days of relief from insomnia. Calmare treatments and the neural prolotherapy regimen continue to provide effective but temporary relief from pain.

Discussion

Currently there is no curative treatment for AD. The majority of the literature is composed of case reports without summaries of potential interventions and their efficacies. AD therapies focus on symptom relief and mainly include pharmacologic and surgical intervention. In this case report several novel treatment modalities have been shown to be partially effective.

Surgical Intervention

Liposuction and lipoma resection have been described as effective only in the short term for AD.^2,4-6 Hansson and colleagues suggested liposuction avulsion for sensory nerves and a portion of the proposed abnormal nerve connections between the peripheral nervous system and sensory nerves as a potential therapy for pain improvement.⁵ But the clinical significance of pain relief from liposuction is unclear and is contraindicated in recurrent lipomas.⁵

Pharmaceutical Approach

Although relief with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and narcotic analgesics have been unpredictable, Herbst and Asare-Bediako described significant pain relief in a subset of patients with AD with a variety of oral analgesics.^7,8 However, the duration of this relief was not clearly stated, and the types or medications or combinations were not discussed. Other pharmacologic agents trialed in the treatment of AD include methotrexate, infliximab, Interferon α-2b, and calcium channel modulators (pregabalin and oxcarbazepine).^2,9-11 However, the mechanism and significance of pain relief from these medications remain unclear.

Subanesthesia Therapy

Lidocaine has been used as both a topical agent and an IV infusion in the treatment of chronic pain due to AD for decades. Desai and colleagues described 60% sustained pain reduction in a patient using lidocaine 5% transdermal patches.⁴ IV infusion of lidocaine has been described in various dosages, though the mechanism of pain relief is ambiguous, and the duration of effect is longer than the biologic half-life.^2-4,9 Kosseifi and colleagues describe a patient treated with local injections of lidocaine 1% and obtained symptomatic relief for 3 weeks.⁹ Animal studies suggest the action of lidocaine involves the sodium channels in peripheral nerves, while another study suggested there may be an increase in sympathetic nervous system activity after the infusion of lidocaine.^2,9

Ketamine infusions not previously described in the treatment of AD have long been used to treat other chronic pain syndromes (chronic cancer pain, complex regional pain syndrome [CRPS], fibromyalgia, migraine, ischemic pain, and neuropathic pain).^9,12,13 Ketamine has been shown to decrease pain intensity and reduce the amount of opioid analgesic necessary to achieve pain relief, likely through the antagonism of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors.¹² A retrospective review by Patil and Anitescu described subanesthetic ketamine infusions used as a last-line therapy in refractory pain syndromes. They found ketamine reduced VAS scores from mean 8.5 prior to infusion to 0.8 after infusion in patients with CRPS and from 7.0 prior to infusion to 1.0 in patient with non-CRPS refractory pain syndromes.¹³ Hypertension and sedation were the most frequent AEs of ketamine infusion, though a higher incidence of hallucination and confusion were noted in non-CRPS patients. Hocking and Cousins suggest that psychotomimetic AEs of ketamine infusion may be more likely in patients with anxiety.¹⁴ However, it is important to note that ketamine infusion studies have been heterogeneous in their protocol, and only recently have standardization guidelines been proposed.¹⁵

Physical Modalities

Manual lymphatic massage has been described in multiple reports for symptom relief in patients with cancer with malignant growth causing outflow lymphatic obstruction. This technique also has been used to treat the obstructive symptoms seen with the lipomatous growths of AD. Lange and colleagues described a case as providing reduction in pain and the diameter of extremities with twice weekly massage.¹⁴ Herbst and colleagues noted that patients had an equivocal response to massage, with some patients finding that it worsened the progression of lipomatous growths.⁷

Electrocutaneous Stimulation

In a case study by Martinenghi and colleagues, a patient with AD improved following transcutaneous frequency rhythmic electrical modulation system (FREMS) treatment.¹⁶ The treatment involved 4 cycles of 30 minutes each for 6 months. The patient had an improvement of pain on the VAS from 6.4 to 1.7 and an increase from 12 to 18 on the 100-point Barthel index scale for performance in activities of daily living, suggesting an improvement of functional independence as well.¹⁶

The MC5-A Calmare is another cutaneous electrostimulation modality that previously has been used for chronic cancer pain management. This FDA-cleared device is indicated for the treatment of various chronic pain syndromes. The device is proposed to stimulate 5 separate pain areas via cutaneous electrodes applied beyond and above the painful areas in order to “scramble” pain information and reduce perception of chronic pain intensity. Ricci and colleagues included cancer and noncancer subjects in their study and observed reduction in pain intensity by 74% (on numeric rating scale) in the entire subject group after 10 days of treatments. Further, no AEs were reported in either group, and most of the subjects were willing to continue treatment.¹⁷ However, this modality was limited by concerns with insurance coverage, access to a Calmare machine, operator training, and reproducibility of electrode placement to achieve “zero pain” as is the determinant of device treatment cycle output by the manufacturer.

Perineural Injection/Prolotherapy

Perineural injection therapy (PIT) involves the injection of dextrose solution into tissues surrounding an inflamed nerve to reduce neuropathic inflammation. The proposed source of this inflammation is the stimulation of the superficial branches of peptidergic peripheral nerves. Injections are SC and target the affected superficial nerve pathway. Pain relief is usually immediate but requires several treatments to ensure a lasting benefit. There have been no research studies or case reports on the use of PIT or prolotherapy and AD. Although there is a paucity of published literature on the efficacy of PIT, it remains an alternative modality for treatment of chronic pain syndromes. In a systematic review of prolotherapy for chronic musculoskeletal pain, Hauser and colleagues supported the use of dextrose prolotherapy to treat chronic tendinopathies, osteoarthritis of finger and knee joints, spinal and pelvic pain if conservative measures had failed. However, the efficacy on acute musculoskeletal pain was uncertain.¹⁸ In addition to the paucity of published literature, prolotherapy is not available to many patients due to lack of insurance coverage or lack of providers able to perform the procedure.

Hypobaric Pressure Therapy

Hypobaric pressure therapy has been offered as an alternative “touch-free” method for treatment of pain associated with edema. Herbst and Rutledge describe a pilot study focusing on hypobaric pressure therapy in patients with AD using a cyclic altitude conditioning system, which significantly decreased the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (tendency to catastrophize pain symptoms) in patients with AD after 5 days of therapy. VAS scores also demonstrated a linear decrease over 5 days.⁸

Acupuncture

There have been no research studies or case reports regarding the use of either traditional full body acupuncture or BFA in management of AD. However, prior studies have been performed that suggest that acupuncture can be beneficial in chronic pain relief. For examples, a Cochrane review by Manheimer and colleagues showed that acupuncture had a significant benefit in pain relief in subjects with peripheral joint arthritis.¹⁹ In another Cochrane review there was low-to-moderate level evidence compared with no treatment in pain relief, but moderate-level evidence that the effect of acupuncture does not differ from sham (placebo) acupuncture.^20,21

Conclusion

Current therapeutic approaches to AD focus on invasive surgical intervention, chronic opiate and oral medication management. However, we have detailed several additional approaches to AD treatment. Ketamine infusions, which have long been a treatment in other chronic pain syndromes may present a viable alternative to lidocaine infusions in patients with AD. Electrocutaneous stimulation is a validated treatment of chronic pain syndromes, including chronic neuropathic pain and offers an alternative to surgical or pharmacologic management. Further, PIT offers another approach to neuropathic pain management, which has yet to be fully explored. As no standard treatment approach exists for patients with AD, multimodal therapies should be considered to optimize pain management and reduce dependency on opiate mediations.

Acknowledgments
Hunter Holmes McGuire Research Institute and the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department provided the resources and facilities to make this work possible.

Adiposis dolorosa (AD), or Dercum disease, is a rare disorder that was first described in 1888 and characterized by the National Organization of Rare Disorders (NORD) as a chronic pain condition of the adipose tissue generally found in patients who are overweight or obese.^1,2 AD is more common in females aged 35 to 50 years and proposed to be a disease of postmenopausal women, though no prevalence studies exist.² The etiology remains unclear.² Several theories have been proposed, including endocrine and nervous system dysfunction, adipose tissue dysregulation, or pressure on peripheral nerves and chronic inflammation.^2-4 Genetic, autoimmune, and trauma also have been proposed as a mechanism for developing the disease. Treatment modalities focusing on narcotic analgesics have been ineffective in long-term management.³

The objective of the case presentation is to report a variety of approaches for AD and their relative successes at pain control in order to assist other medical professionals who may come across patients with this rare condition.

Case Presentation

A 53-year-old male with a history of blast exposure-related traumatic brain injury, subsequent stroke with residual left hemiparesis, and seizure disorder presented with a 10-year history of nodule formation in his lower extremities causing restriction of motion and pain. The patient had previously undergone lower extremity fasciotomies for compartment syndrome with minimal pain relief. In addition, nodules over his abdomen and chest wall had been increasing over the past 5 years. He also experienced worsening fatigue, cramping, tightness, and paresthesias of the affected areas during this time. Erythema and temperature allodynia were noted in addition to an 80-pound weight gain. From the above symptoms and nodule excision showing histologic signs of lipomatous growth, a diagnosis of AD was made.

The following constitutes the approximate timetable of his treatments for 9 years. He was first diagnosed incidentally at the beginning of this period with AD during an electrodiagnostic examination. He had noticed the lipomas when he was in his 30s, but initially they were not painful. He was referred for treatment of pain to the physical medicine and rehabilitation department.

For the next 3 years, he was treated with prolotherapy. Five percent dextrose in water was injected around many of the painful lipomas in the upper extremities. He noted after the second round of neural prolotherapy that he had reduced swelling of his upper extremities and the lipomas decreased in size. He experienced mild improvement in pain and functional usage of his arms.

He continued to receive neural prolotherapy into the nodules in the arms, legs, abdomen, and chest wall. The number of painful nodules continued to increase, and the patient was started on hydrocodone 10 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (1 tablet every 6 hours as needed) and methadone for pain relief. He was initially started on 5 mg per day of methadone and then was increased in a stepwise, gradual fashion to 10 mg in the morning and 15 mg in the evening. He transitioned to morphine sulfate, which was increased to a maximum dose of 45 mg twice daily. This medication was slowly tapered due to adverse effects (AEs), including sedation.

After weaning off morphine sulfate, the patient was started on lidocaine infusions every 3 months. Each infusion provided at least 50% pain reduction for 6 to 8 weeks. He was approved by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to have Vaser (Bausch Health, Laval, Canada) minimally invasive ultrasound liposuction treatment, performed at an outside facility. The patient was satisfied with the pain relief that he received and noted that the number of lipomas greatly diminished. However, due to funding issues, this treatment was discontinued after several months.

The patient had moderately good pain relief with methadone 5 mg in the morning, and 15 mg in the evening. However, the patient reported significant somnolence during the daytime with the regimen. Attempts to wean the patient off methadone was met with uncontrollable daytime pain. With suboptimal oral pain regimen, difficulty obtaining Vaser treatments, and limitation in frequency of neural prolotherapy, the decision was made to initiate 12 treatments of Calmare (Fairfield, CT) cutaneous electrostimulation.

During his first treatment, he had the electrodes placed on his lower extremities. The pre- and posttreatment 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) scores were 9 and 0, respectively, after the first visit. The position of the electrodes varied, depending on the location of his pain, including upper extremities and abdominal wall. During the treatment course, the patient experienced an improvement in subjective functional status. He was able to sleep in the same bed as his wife, shake hands without severe pain, and walk .25 mile, all of which he was unable to do before the electrostimulative treatment. He also reported overall improvement in emotional well-being, resumption of his hobbies (eg, playing the guitar), and social engagement. Methadone was successfully weaned off during this trial without breakthrough pain. This improvement in pain and functional status continued for several weeks; however, he had an exacerbation of his pain following a long plane flight. Due to uncertain reliability of pain relief with the procedure, the pain management service initiated a regimen of methadone 10 mg twice daily to be initiated when a procedure does not provide the desired duration of pain relief and gradually discontinued following the next interventional procedure.

The patient continued a regimen that included lidocaine infusions, neural prolotherapy, Calmare electrostimulative therapy, as well as lymphedema massage. Additionally, he began receiving weekly acupuncture treatments. He started with traditional full body acupuncture and then transitioned to battlefield acupuncture (BFA). Each acupuncture treatment provided about 50% improvement in pain on the VAS, and improved sleep for 3 days posttreatment.

However, after 18 months of the above treatment protocol, the patient experienced a general tonic-clonic seizure at home. Due to concern for the lowered seizure threshold, lidocaine infusions and methadone were discontinued. Long-acting oral morphine was initiated. The patient continued Calmare treatments and neural prolotherapy after a seizure-free interval. This regimen provided the patient with temporary pain relief but for a shorter duration than prior interventions.

Ketamine infusions were eventually initiated about 5 years after the diagnosis of AD was made, with postprocedure pain as 0/10 on the VAS. Pain relief was sustained for 3 months, with the notable AEs of hallucinations in the immediate postinfusion period. Administration consisted of the following: 500 mg of ketamine in a 500 mL bag of 0.9% NaCl. A 60-mg slow IV push was given followed by 60 mg/h increased every 15 min by 10 mg/h for a maximum dose of 150 mg/h. In a single visit the maximum total dose of ketamine administered was 500 mg. The protocol, which usually delivered 200 mg in a visit but was increased to 500 mg because the 200-mg dose was ineffective, was based on protocols at other institutions to accommodate the level of monitoring available in the Interventional Pain Clinic. The clinic also developed an infusion protocol with at least 1 month between treatments. The patient continues to undergo scheduled ketamine infusions every 14 weeks in addition to monthly BFA. The patient reported near total pain relief for about a month following ketamine infusion, with about 3 months of sustained pain relief. Each BFA session continues to provide 3 days of relief from insomnia. Calmare treatments and the neural prolotherapy regimen continue to provide effective but temporary relief from pain.

Discussion

Currently there is no curative treatment for AD. The majority of the literature is composed of case reports without summaries of potential interventions and their efficacies. AD therapies focus on symptom relief and mainly include pharmacologic and surgical intervention. In this case report several novel treatment modalities have been shown to be partially effective.

Surgical Intervention

Liposuction and lipoma resection have been described as effective only in the short term for AD.^2,4-6 Hansson and colleagues suggested liposuction avulsion for sensory nerves and a portion of the proposed abnormal nerve connections between the peripheral nervous system and sensory nerves as a potential therapy for pain improvement.⁵ But the clinical significance of pain relief from liposuction is unclear and is contraindicated in recurrent lipomas.⁵

Pharmaceutical Approach

Although relief with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and narcotic analgesics have been unpredictable, Herbst and Asare-Bediako described significant pain relief in a subset of patients with AD with a variety of oral analgesics.^7,8 However, the duration of this relief was not clearly stated, and the types or medications or combinations were not discussed. Other pharmacologic agents trialed in the treatment of AD include methotrexate, infliximab, Interferon α-2b, and calcium channel modulators (pregabalin and oxcarbazepine).^2,9-11 However, the mechanism and significance of pain relief from these medications remain unclear.

Subanesthesia Therapy

Lidocaine has been used as both a topical agent and an IV infusion in the treatment of chronic pain due to AD for decades. Desai and colleagues described 60% sustained pain reduction in a patient using lidocaine 5% transdermal patches.⁴ IV infusion of lidocaine has been described in various dosages, though the mechanism of pain relief is ambiguous, and the duration of effect is longer than the biologic half-life.^2-4,9 Kosseifi and colleagues describe a patient treated with local injections of lidocaine 1% and obtained symptomatic relief for 3 weeks.⁹ Animal studies suggest the action of lidocaine involves the sodium channels in peripheral nerves, while another study suggested there may be an increase in sympathetic nervous system activity after the infusion of lidocaine.^2,9

Ketamine infusions not previously described in the treatment of AD have long been used to treat other chronic pain syndromes (chronic cancer pain, complex regional pain syndrome [CRPS], fibromyalgia, migraine, ischemic pain, and neuropathic pain).^9,12,13 Ketamine has been shown to decrease pain intensity and reduce the amount of opioid analgesic necessary to achieve pain relief, likely through the antagonism of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors.¹² A retrospective review by Patil and Anitescu described subanesthetic ketamine infusions used as a last-line therapy in refractory pain syndromes. They found ketamine reduced VAS scores from mean 8.5 prior to infusion to 0.8 after infusion in patients with CRPS and from 7.0 prior to infusion to 1.0 in patient with non-CRPS refractory pain syndromes.¹³ Hypertension and sedation were the most frequent AEs of ketamine infusion, though a higher incidence of hallucination and confusion were noted in non-CRPS patients. Hocking and Cousins suggest that psychotomimetic AEs of ketamine infusion may be more likely in patients with anxiety.¹⁴ However, it is important to note that ketamine infusion studies have been heterogeneous in their protocol, and only recently have standardization guidelines been proposed.¹⁵

Physical Modalities

Manual lymphatic massage has been described in multiple reports for symptom relief in patients with cancer with malignant growth causing outflow lymphatic obstruction. This technique also has been used to treat the obstructive symptoms seen with the lipomatous growths of AD. Lange and colleagues described a case as providing reduction in pain and the diameter of extremities with twice weekly massage.¹⁴ Herbst and colleagues noted that patients had an equivocal response to massage, with some patients finding that it worsened the progression of lipomatous growths.⁷

Electrocutaneous Stimulation

In a case study by Martinenghi and colleagues, a patient with AD improved following transcutaneous frequency rhythmic electrical modulation system (FREMS) treatment.¹⁶ The treatment involved 4 cycles of 30 minutes each for 6 months. The patient had an improvement of pain on the VAS from 6.4 to 1.7 and an increase from 12 to 18 on the 100-point Barthel index scale for performance in activities of daily living, suggesting an improvement of functional independence as well.¹⁶

The MC5-A Calmare is another cutaneous electrostimulation modality that previously has been used for chronic cancer pain management. This FDA-cleared device is indicated for the treatment of various chronic pain syndromes. The device is proposed to stimulate 5 separate pain areas via cutaneous electrodes applied beyond and above the painful areas in order to “scramble” pain information and reduce perception of chronic pain intensity. Ricci and colleagues included cancer and noncancer subjects in their study and observed reduction in pain intensity by 74% (on numeric rating scale) in the entire subject group after 10 days of treatments. Further, no AEs were reported in either group, and most of the subjects were willing to continue treatment.¹⁷ However, this modality was limited by concerns with insurance coverage, access to a Calmare machine, operator training, and reproducibility of electrode placement to achieve “zero pain” as is the determinant of device treatment cycle output by the manufacturer.

Perineural Injection/Prolotherapy

Perineural injection therapy (PIT) involves the injection of dextrose solution into tissues surrounding an inflamed nerve to reduce neuropathic inflammation. The proposed source of this inflammation is the stimulation of the superficial branches of peptidergic peripheral nerves. Injections are SC and target the affected superficial nerve pathway. Pain relief is usually immediate but requires several treatments to ensure a lasting benefit. There have been no research studies or case reports on the use of PIT or prolotherapy and AD. Although there is a paucity of published literature on the efficacy of PIT, it remains an alternative modality for treatment of chronic pain syndromes. In a systematic review of prolotherapy for chronic musculoskeletal pain, Hauser and colleagues supported the use of dextrose prolotherapy to treat chronic tendinopathies, osteoarthritis of finger and knee joints, spinal and pelvic pain if conservative measures had failed. However, the efficacy on acute musculoskeletal pain was uncertain.¹⁸ In addition to the paucity of published literature, prolotherapy is not available to many patients due to lack of insurance coverage or lack of providers able to perform the procedure.

Hypobaric Pressure Therapy

Hypobaric pressure therapy has been offered as an alternative “touch-free” method for treatment of pain associated with edema. Herbst and Rutledge describe a pilot study focusing on hypobaric pressure therapy in patients with AD using a cyclic altitude conditioning system, which significantly decreased the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (tendency to catastrophize pain symptoms) in patients with AD after 5 days of therapy. VAS scores also demonstrated a linear decrease over 5 days.⁸

Acupuncture

There have been no research studies or case reports regarding the use of either traditional full body acupuncture or BFA in management of AD. However, prior studies have been performed that suggest that acupuncture can be beneficial in chronic pain relief. For examples, a Cochrane review by Manheimer and colleagues showed that acupuncture had a significant benefit in pain relief in subjects with peripheral joint arthritis.¹⁹ In another Cochrane review there was low-to-moderate level evidence compared with no treatment in pain relief, but moderate-level evidence that the effect of acupuncture does not differ from sham (placebo) acupuncture.^20,21

Conclusion

Current therapeutic approaches to AD focus on invasive surgical intervention, chronic opiate and oral medication management. However, we have detailed several additional approaches to AD treatment. Ketamine infusions, which have long been a treatment in other chronic pain syndromes may present a viable alternative to lidocaine infusions in patients with AD. Electrocutaneous stimulation is a validated treatment of chronic pain syndromes, including chronic neuropathic pain and offers an alternative to surgical or pharmacologic management. Further, PIT offers another approach to neuropathic pain management, which has yet to be fully explored. As no standard treatment approach exists for patients with AD, multimodal therapies should be considered to optimize pain management and reduce dependency on opiate mediations.

Acknowledgments
Hunter Holmes McGuire Research Institute and the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department provided the resources and facilities to make this work possible.

Adiposis dolorosa (AD), or Dercum disease, is a rare disorder that was first described in 1888 and characterized by the National Organization of Rare Disorders (NORD) as a chronic pain condition of the adipose tissue generally found in patients who are overweight or obese.^1,2 AD is more common in females aged 35 to 50 years and proposed to be a disease of postmenopausal women, though no prevalence studies exist.² The etiology remains unclear.² Several theories have been proposed, including endocrine and nervous system dysfunction, adipose tissue dysregulation, or pressure on peripheral nerves and chronic inflammation.^2-4 Genetic, autoimmune, and trauma also have been proposed as a mechanism for developing the disease. Treatment modalities focusing on narcotic analgesics have been ineffective in long-term management.³

The objective of the case presentation is to report a variety of approaches for AD and their relative successes at pain control in order to assist other medical professionals who may come across patients with this rare condition.

Case Presentation

A 53-year-old male with a history of blast exposure-related traumatic brain injury, subsequent stroke with residual left hemiparesis, and seizure disorder presented with a 10-year history of nodule formation in his lower extremities causing restriction of motion and pain. The patient had previously undergone lower extremity fasciotomies for compartment syndrome with minimal pain relief. In addition, nodules over his abdomen and chest wall had been increasing over the past 5 years. He also experienced worsening fatigue, cramping, tightness, and paresthesias of the affected areas during this time. Erythema and temperature allodynia were noted in addition to an 80-pound weight gain. From the above symptoms and nodule excision showing histologic signs of lipomatous growth, a diagnosis of AD was made.

The following constitutes the approximate timetable of his treatments for 9 years. He was first diagnosed incidentally at the beginning of this period with AD during an electrodiagnostic examination. He had noticed the lipomas when he was in his 30s, but initially they were not painful. He was referred for treatment of pain to the physical medicine and rehabilitation department.

For the next 3 years, he was treated with prolotherapy. Five percent dextrose in water was injected around many of the painful lipomas in the upper extremities. He noted after the second round of neural prolotherapy that he had reduced swelling of his upper extremities and the lipomas decreased in size. He experienced mild improvement in pain and functional usage of his arms.

He continued to receive neural prolotherapy into the nodules in the arms, legs, abdomen, and chest wall. The number of painful nodules continued to increase, and the patient was started on hydrocodone 10 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg (1 tablet every 6 hours as needed) and methadone for pain relief. He was initially started on 5 mg per day of methadone and then was increased in a stepwise, gradual fashion to 10 mg in the morning and 15 mg in the evening. He transitioned to morphine sulfate, which was increased to a maximum dose of 45 mg twice daily. This medication was slowly tapered due to adverse effects (AEs), including sedation.

After weaning off morphine sulfate, the patient was started on lidocaine infusions every 3 months. Each infusion provided at least 50% pain reduction for 6 to 8 weeks. He was approved by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to have Vaser (Bausch Health, Laval, Canada) minimally invasive ultrasound liposuction treatment, performed at an outside facility. The patient was satisfied with the pain relief that he received and noted that the number of lipomas greatly diminished. However, due to funding issues, this treatment was discontinued after several months.

The patient had moderately good pain relief with methadone 5 mg in the morning, and 15 mg in the evening. However, the patient reported significant somnolence during the daytime with the regimen. Attempts to wean the patient off methadone was met with uncontrollable daytime pain. With suboptimal oral pain regimen, difficulty obtaining Vaser treatments, and limitation in frequency of neural prolotherapy, the decision was made to initiate 12 treatments of Calmare (Fairfield, CT) cutaneous electrostimulation.

During his first treatment, he had the electrodes placed on his lower extremities. The pre- and posttreatment 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) scores were 9 and 0, respectively, after the first visit. The position of the electrodes varied, depending on the location of his pain, including upper extremities and abdominal wall. During the treatment course, the patient experienced an improvement in subjective functional status. He was able to sleep in the same bed as his wife, shake hands without severe pain, and walk .25 mile, all of which he was unable to do before the electrostimulative treatment. He also reported overall improvement in emotional well-being, resumption of his hobbies (eg, playing the guitar), and social engagement. Methadone was successfully weaned off during this trial without breakthrough pain. This improvement in pain and functional status continued for several weeks; however, he had an exacerbation of his pain following a long plane flight. Due to uncertain reliability of pain relief with the procedure, the pain management service initiated a regimen of methadone 10 mg twice daily to be initiated when a procedure does not provide the desired duration of pain relief and gradually discontinued following the next interventional procedure.

The patient continued a regimen that included lidocaine infusions, neural prolotherapy, Calmare electrostimulative therapy, as well as lymphedema massage. Additionally, he began receiving weekly acupuncture treatments. He started with traditional full body acupuncture and then transitioned to battlefield acupuncture (BFA). Each acupuncture treatment provided about 50% improvement in pain on the VAS, and improved sleep for 3 days posttreatment.

However, after 18 months of the above treatment protocol, the patient experienced a general tonic-clonic seizure at home. Due to concern for the lowered seizure threshold, lidocaine infusions and methadone were discontinued. Long-acting oral morphine was initiated. The patient continued Calmare treatments and neural prolotherapy after a seizure-free interval. This regimen provided the patient with temporary pain relief but for a shorter duration than prior interventions.

Ketamine infusions were eventually initiated about 5 years after the diagnosis of AD was made, with postprocedure pain as 0/10 on the VAS. Pain relief was sustained for 3 months, with the notable AEs of hallucinations in the immediate postinfusion period. Administration consisted of the following: 500 mg of ketamine in a 500 mL bag of 0.9% NaCl. A 60-mg slow IV push was given followed by 60 mg/h increased every 15 min by 10 mg/h for a maximum dose of 150 mg/h. In a single visit the maximum total dose of ketamine administered was 500 mg. The protocol, which usually delivered 200 mg in a visit but was increased to 500 mg because the 200-mg dose was ineffective, was based on protocols at other institutions to accommodate the level of monitoring available in the Interventional Pain Clinic. The clinic also developed an infusion protocol with at least 1 month between treatments. The patient continues to undergo scheduled ketamine infusions every 14 weeks in addition to monthly BFA. The patient reported near total pain relief for about a month following ketamine infusion, with about 3 months of sustained pain relief. Each BFA session continues to provide 3 days of relief from insomnia. Calmare treatments and the neural prolotherapy regimen continue to provide effective but temporary relief from pain.

Discussion

Currently there is no curative treatment for AD. The majority of the literature is composed of case reports without summaries of potential interventions and their efficacies. AD therapies focus on symptom relief and mainly include pharmacologic and surgical intervention. In this case report several novel treatment modalities have been shown to be partially effective.

Surgical Intervention

Liposuction and lipoma resection have been described as effective only in the short term for AD.^2,4-6 Hansson and colleagues suggested liposuction avulsion for sensory nerves and a portion of the proposed abnormal nerve connections between the peripheral nervous system and sensory nerves as a potential therapy for pain improvement.⁵ But the clinical significance of pain relief from liposuction is unclear and is contraindicated in recurrent lipomas.⁵

Pharmaceutical Approach

Although relief with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and narcotic analgesics have been unpredictable, Herbst and Asare-Bediako described significant pain relief in a subset of patients with AD with a variety of oral analgesics.^7,8 However, the duration of this relief was not clearly stated, and the types or medications or combinations were not discussed. Other pharmacologic agents trialed in the treatment of AD include methotrexate, infliximab, Interferon α-2b, and calcium channel modulators (pregabalin and oxcarbazepine).^2,9-11 However, the mechanism and significance of pain relief from these medications remain unclear.

Subanesthesia Therapy

Lidocaine has been used as both a topical agent and an IV infusion in the treatment of chronic pain due to AD for decades. Desai and colleagues described 60% sustained pain reduction in a patient using lidocaine 5% transdermal patches.⁴ IV infusion of lidocaine has been described in various dosages, though the mechanism of pain relief is ambiguous, and the duration of effect is longer than the biologic half-life.^2-4,9 Kosseifi and colleagues describe a patient treated with local injections of lidocaine 1% and obtained symptomatic relief for 3 weeks.⁹ Animal studies suggest the action of lidocaine involves the sodium channels in peripheral nerves, while another study suggested there may be an increase in sympathetic nervous system activity after the infusion of lidocaine.^2,9

Ketamine infusions not previously described in the treatment of AD have long been used to treat other chronic pain syndromes (chronic cancer pain, complex regional pain syndrome [CRPS], fibromyalgia, migraine, ischemic pain, and neuropathic pain).^9,12,13 Ketamine has been shown to decrease pain intensity and reduce the amount of opioid analgesic necessary to achieve pain relief, likely through the antagonism of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors.¹² A retrospective review by Patil and Anitescu described subanesthetic ketamine infusions used as a last-line therapy in refractory pain syndromes. They found ketamine reduced VAS scores from mean 8.5 prior to infusion to 0.8 after infusion in patients with CRPS and from 7.0 prior to infusion to 1.0 in patient with non-CRPS refractory pain syndromes.¹³ Hypertension and sedation were the most frequent AEs of ketamine infusion, though a higher incidence of hallucination and confusion were noted in non-CRPS patients. Hocking and Cousins suggest that psychotomimetic AEs of ketamine infusion may be more likely in patients with anxiety.¹⁴ However, it is important to note that ketamine infusion studies have been heterogeneous in their protocol, and only recently have standardization guidelines been proposed.¹⁵

Physical Modalities

Manual lymphatic massage has been described in multiple reports for symptom relief in patients with cancer with malignant growth causing outflow lymphatic obstruction. This technique also has been used to treat the obstructive symptoms seen with the lipomatous growths of AD. Lange and colleagues described a case as providing reduction in pain and the diameter of extremities with twice weekly massage.¹⁴ Herbst and colleagues noted that patients had an equivocal response to massage, with some patients finding that it worsened the progression of lipomatous growths.⁷

Electrocutaneous Stimulation

In a case study by Martinenghi and colleagues, a patient with AD improved following transcutaneous frequency rhythmic electrical modulation system (FREMS) treatment.¹⁶ The treatment involved 4 cycles of 30 minutes each for 6 months. The patient had an improvement of pain on the VAS from 6.4 to 1.7 and an increase from 12 to 18 on the 100-point Barthel index scale for performance in activities of daily living, suggesting an improvement of functional independence as well.¹⁶

The MC5-A Calmare is another cutaneous electrostimulation modality that previously has been used for chronic cancer pain management. This FDA-cleared device is indicated for the treatment of various chronic pain syndromes. The device is proposed to stimulate 5 separate pain areas via cutaneous electrodes applied beyond and above the painful areas in order to “scramble” pain information and reduce perception of chronic pain intensity. Ricci and colleagues included cancer and noncancer subjects in their study and observed reduction in pain intensity by 74% (on numeric rating scale) in the entire subject group after 10 days of treatments. Further, no AEs were reported in either group, and most of the subjects were willing to continue treatment.¹⁷ However, this modality was limited by concerns with insurance coverage, access to a Calmare machine, operator training, and reproducibility of electrode placement to achieve “zero pain” as is the determinant of device treatment cycle output by the manufacturer.

Perineural Injection/Prolotherapy

Perineural injection therapy (PIT) involves the injection of dextrose solution into tissues surrounding an inflamed nerve to reduce neuropathic inflammation. The proposed source of this inflammation is the stimulation of the superficial branches of peptidergic peripheral nerves. Injections are SC and target the affected superficial nerve pathway. Pain relief is usually immediate but requires several treatments to ensure a lasting benefit. There have been no research studies or case reports on the use of PIT or prolotherapy and AD. Although there is a paucity of published literature on the efficacy of PIT, it remains an alternative modality for treatment of chronic pain syndromes. In a systematic review of prolotherapy for chronic musculoskeletal pain, Hauser and colleagues supported the use of dextrose prolotherapy to treat chronic tendinopathies, osteoarthritis of finger and knee joints, spinal and pelvic pain if conservative measures had failed. However, the efficacy on acute musculoskeletal pain was uncertain.¹⁸ In addition to the paucity of published literature, prolotherapy is not available to many patients due to lack of insurance coverage or lack of providers able to perform the procedure.

Hypobaric Pressure Therapy

Hypobaric pressure therapy has been offered as an alternative “touch-free” method for treatment of pain associated with edema. Herbst and Rutledge describe a pilot study focusing on hypobaric pressure therapy in patients with AD using a cyclic altitude conditioning system, which significantly decreased the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (tendency to catastrophize pain symptoms) in patients with AD after 5 days of therapy. VAS scores also demonstrated a linear decrease over 5 days.⁸

Acupuncture

There have been no research studies or case reports regarding the use of either traditional full body acupuncture or BFA in management of AD. However, prior studies have been performed that suggest that acupuncture can be beneficial in chronic pain relief. For examples, a Cochrane review by Manheimer and colleagues showed that acupuncture had a significant benefit in pain relief in subjects with peripheral joint arthritis.¹⁹ In another Cochrane review there was low-to-moderate level evidence compared with no treatment in pain relief, but moderate-level evidence that the effect of acupuncture does not differ from sham (placebo) acupuncture.^20,21

Conclusion

Current therapeutic approaches to AD focus on invasive surgical intervention, chronic opiate and oral medication management. However, we have detailed several additional approaches to AD treatment. Ketamine infusions, which have long been a treatment in other chronic pain syndromes may present a viable alternative to lidocaine infusions in patients with AD. Electrocutaneous stimulation is a validated treatment of chronic pain syndromes, including chronic neuropathic pain and offers an alternative to surgical or pharmacologic management. Further, PIT offers another approach to neuropathic pain management, which has yet to be fully explored. As no standard treatment approach exists for patients with AD, multimodal therapies should be considered to optimize pain management and reduce dependency on opiate mediations.

Acknowledgments
Hunter Holmes McGuire Research Institute and the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department provided the resources and facilities to make this work possible.

Migraine is the second leading cause of years of life lived with a disability globally.¹ It affects people of all ages, but particularly during the years associated with the highest productivity in terms of work and family life.

Migraine is a genetic neurologic disease that can be influenced or triggered by environmental factors. However, triggers do not cause migraine. For example, stress does not cause migraine, but it can exacerbate it.

Primary care physicians can help patients reduce the likelihood of a migraine attack, the severity of symptoms, or both by offering lifestyle counseling centered around the mnemonic SEEDS: sleep, exercise, eat, diary, and stress. In this article, each factor is discussed individually for its current support in the literature along with best-practice recommendations.

S IS FOR SLEEP

Before optimizing sleep hygiene, screen for sleep apnea, especially in those who have chronic daily headache upon awakening. An excellent tool is the STOP-Bang screening questionnaire⁵ (www.stopbang.ca/osa/screening.php). Patients respond “yes” or “no” to the following questions:

• Snoring: Do you snore loudly (louder than talking or loud enough to be heard through closed doors)?
• Tired: Do you often feel tired, fatigued, or sleepy during the daytime?
• Observed: Has anyone observed you stop breathing during your sleep?
• Pressure: Do you have or are you being treated for high blood pressure?
• Body mass index greater than 35 kg/m²?
• Age over 50?
• Neck circumference larger than 40 cm (females) or  42 cm (males)?
• Gender—male?

Each “yes” answer is scored as 1 point. A score less than 3 indicates low risk of obstructive sleep apnea; 3 to 4 indicates moderate risk; and 5 or more indicates high risk. Optimization of sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure therapy can improve sleep apnea headache.⁶ The improved sleep from reduced arousals may also mitigate migraine symptoms.

Behavioral modification for sleep hygiene can convert chronic migraine to episodic migraine.⁷ One such program is stimulus control therapy, which focuses on using cues to initiate sleep (Table 1). Patients are encouraged to keep the bedroom quiet, dark, and cool, and to go to sleep at the same time every night. Importantly, the bed should be associated only with sleep. If patients are unable to fall asleep within 20 to 30 minutes, they should leave the room so they do not associate the bed with frustration and anxiety. Use of phones, tablets, and television in the bedroom is discouraged as these devices may make it more difficult to fall asleep.⁸

The next option is sleep restriction, which is useful for comorbid insomnia. Patients keep a sleep diary to better understand their sleep-wake cycle. The goal is 90% sleep efficiency, meaning that 90% of the time in bed (TIB) is spent asleep. For example, if the patient is in bed 8 hours but asleep only 4 hours, sleep efficiency is 50%. The goal is to reduce TIB to match the time asleep and to agree on a prescribed daily wake-up time. When the patient is consistently sleeping 90% of the TIB, add 30-minute increments until he or she is appropriately sleeping 7 to 8 hours at night.⁹ Naps are not recommended.

Let patients know that their migraine may worsen until a new routine sleep pattern emerges. This method is not recommended for patients with untreated sleep apnea.

E IS FOR EXERCISE

Exercise is broadly recommended for a healthy lifestyle; some evidence suggests that it can also be useful in the management of migraine.¹⁰ Low levels of physical activity and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with migraine.¹¹ It is unclear if patients with migraine are less likely to exercise because they want to avoid triggering a migraine or if a sedentary lifestyle increases their risk.

Exercise has been studied for its prophylactic benefits in migraine, and one hypothesis relates to beta-endorphins. Levels of beta-endorphins are reduced in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine.¹² Exercise programs may increase levels while reducing headache frequency and duration.¹³ One study showed that pain thresholds do not change with exercise programs, suggesting that it is avoidance behavior that is positively altered rather than the underlying pain pathways.¹⁴

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 5 randomized controlled trials and 1 nonrandomized controlled clinical trial showed that exercise reduced monthly migraine days by only 0.6 (± 0.3) days, but the data also suggested that as the exercise intensity increased, so did the positive effects.¹⁰

Some data suggest that exercise may also reduce migraine duration and severity as well as the need for abortive medication.¹⁰ Two studies in this systematic review^15,16 showed that exercise benefits were equivalent to those of migraine preventives such as amitriptyline and topiramate; the combination of amitriptyline and exercise was more beneficial than exercise alone. Multiple types of exercise were beneficial, including walking, jogging, cross-training, and cycling when done for least 6 weeks and for 30 to 50 minutes 3 to 5 times a week.

These findings are in line with the current recommendations for general health from the American College of Sports Medicine, ie, moderate to vigorous cardio­respiratory exercise for 30 to 60 minutes 3 to 5 times a week (or 150 minutes per week). The daily exercise can be continuous or done in intervals of less than 20 minutes. For those with a sedentary lifestyle, as is seen in a significant proportion of the migraine population, light to moderate exercise for less than 20 minutes is still beneficial.¹⁷

Based on this evidence, the best current recommendation for patients with migraine is to engage in graded moderate cardiorespiratory exercise, although any exercise is better than none. If a patient is sedentary or has poor exercise tolerance, or both, exercising once a week for shorter time periods may be a manageable place to start.

Some patients may identify exercise as a trigger or exacerbating factor in migraine. These patients may need appropriate prophylactic and abortive therapies before starting an exercise regimen.

THE SECOND E IS FOR EAT (FOOD AND DRINK)

Many patients believe that some foods trigger migraine attacks, but further study is needed. The most consistent food triggers appear to be red wine and caffeine (withdrawal).^18,19 Interestingly, patients with migraine report low levels of alcohol consumption,²⁰ but it is unclear if that is because alcohol has a protective effect or if patients avoid it.

Some patients may crave certain foods in the prodromal phase of an attack, eat the food, experience the attack, and falsely conclude that the food caused the attack.²¹ Premonitory symptoms include fatigue, cognitive changes, homeostatic changes, sensory hyperresponsiveness, and food cravings.²¹ It is difficult to distinguish between premonitory phase food cravings and true triggers because premonitory symptoms can precede headache by 48 to 72 hours, and the timing for a trigger to be considered causal is not known.²²

Chocolate is often thought to be a migraine trigger, but the evidence argues against this and even suggests that sweet cravings are a part of the premonitory phase.²³ Monosodium glutamate is often identified as a trigger as well, but the literature is inconsistent and does not support a causal relationship.²⁴ Identifying true food triggers in migraine is difficult, and patients with migraine may have poor quality diets, with some foods acting as true triggers for certain patients.²⁵ These possibilities have led to the development of many “migraine diets,” including elimination diets.

Elimination diets

Elimination diets involve avoiding specific food items over a period of time and then adding them back in one at a time to gauge whether they cause a reaction in the body. A number of these diets have been studied for their effects on headache and migraine:

Gluten-free diets restrict foods that contain wheat, rye, and barley. A systematic review of gluten-free diets in patients with celiac disease found that headache or migraine frequency decreased by 51.6% to 100% based on multiple cohort studies (N = 42,388).²⁶ There are no studies on the use of a gluten-free diet for migraine in patients without celiac disease.

Immunoglobulin G-elimination diets restrict foods that serve as antigens for IgG. However, data supporting these diets are inconsistent. Two small randomized controlled trials found that the diets improved migraine symptoms, but a larger study found no improvement in the number of migraine days at 12 weeks, although there was an initially significant effect at 4 weeks.^27–29

Antihistamine diets restrict foods that have high levels of histamines, including fermented dairy, vegetables, soy products,  wine, beer, alcohol, and those that cause histamine release regardless of IgE testing results. A prospective single-arm study of antihistamine diets in patients with chronic headache reported symptom improvement, which could be applied to certain comorbidities such as  mast cell activation syndrome.³⁰ Another prospective nonrandomized controlled study eliminated foods based on positive IgE skin-prick testing for allergy in patients with recurrent migraine and found that it reduced headache frequency.³¹

Tyramine-free diets are often recommended due to the presumption that tyramine-containing foods (eg, aged cheese, cured or smoked meats and fish, and beer) are triggers. However, multiple studies have reviewed this theory with inconsistent results,³² and the only study of a tyramine-free diet was negative.³³ In addition, commonly purported high-tyramine foods have lower tyramine levels than previously thought.³⁴

Low-fat diets in migraine are supported by 2 small randomized controlled trials and a prospective study showing a decrease in symptom severity; the results for frequency are inconsistent.^35–37

Low-glycemic index diets are supported in migraine by 1 randomized controlled trial that showed improvement in migraine frequency in a diet group and in a control group of patients who took a standard migraine-preventive medication to manage their symptoms.³⁸

Other migraine diets

Diets high in certain foods or ingredient ratios, as opposed to elimination diets, have also been studied in patients with migraine. One promising diet containing high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of omega-6 fatty acids was shown in a systematic review to reduce the duration of migraine but not the frequency or severity.³⁹ A more recent randomized controlled trial of this diet in chronic migraine also showed that it decreased migraine frequency.⁴⁰

The ketogenic diet (high fat, low carbohydrate) had promising results in a randomized controlled trial in overweight women with migraine and in a prospective study.^41,42 However, a prospective study of the Atkins diet in teenagers with chronic daily headaches showed no benefit.⁴³ The ketogenic diet is difficult to follow and may work in part due to weight loss alone, although ketogenesis itself may also play a role.^41,44

Sodium levels have been shown to be higher in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine than in controls, particularly during an attack.⁴⁵ For a prehypertensive population or an elderly population, a low-sodium diet may be beneficial based on 2 prospective trials.^46,47 However, a younger female population without hypertension and low-to-normal body mass index had a reduced probability of migraine while consuming a high-sodium diet.⁴⁸

Counseling about sodium intake should be tailored to specific patient populations. For example, a diet low in sodium may be appropriate for patients with vascular risk factors such as hypertension, whereas a high-sodium diet may be appropriate in patients with comorbidities like postural tachycardia syndrome or in those with a propensity for low blood pressure or low body mass index.

Encourage routine meals and hydration

The standard advice for patients with migraine is to consume regular meals. Headaches have been associated with fasting, and those with migraine are predisposed to attacks in the setting of fasting.^49,50 Migraine is more common when meals are skipped, particularly breakfast.⁵¹

It is unclear how fasting lowers the migraine threshold. Nutritional studies show that skipping meals, particularly breakfast, increases low-grade inflammation and impairs  glucose metabolism by affecting insulin and fat oxidation metabolism.⁵² However, hypoglycemia itself is not a consistent cause of headache or migraine attacks.⁵³ As described above, a randomized controlled trial of a low-glycemic index diet actually decreased migraine frequency and severity.³⁸ Skipping meals also reduces energy and is associated with reduced physical activity, perhaps leading to multiple compounding triggers that further lower the migraine threshold.^54,55

When counseling patients about the need to eat breakfast, consider what they normally consume (eg, is breakfast just a cup of coffee?). Replacing simple carbohydrates with protein, fats, and fiber may be beneficial for general health, but the effects on migraine are not known, nor is the optimal composition of breakfast foods.⁵⁵

The optimal timing of breakfast relative to awakening is also unclear, but in general, it should be eaten within 30 to 60 minutes of rising. Also consider patients’ work hours—delayed-phase or shift workers have altered sleep cycles.

Recommendations vary in regard to hydration. Headache is associated with fluid restriction and dehydration,^56,57 but only a few studies suggest that rehydration and increased hydration status can improve migraine.⁵⁸ In fact, a single post hoc analysis of a metoclopramide study showed that intravenous fluid alone for patients with migraine in the emergency room did not improve pain outcomes.⁵⁹

The amount of water patients should drink daily in the setting of migraine is also unknown, but a study showed benefit with 4 L, which equates to a daily intake of 16 eight-ounce glasses.⁶⁰ One review on general health that could be extrapolated given the low risk of the intervention indicated that 1.8 L daily (7 to 8 eight-ounce glasses) promoted a euhydration status in most people, although many factors contribute to hydration status.⁶¹

Caffeine intake is also a major consideration. Caffeine is a nonspecific adenosine receptor antagonist that modulates adenosine receptors like the pronociceptive 2A receptor, leading to changes integral to the neuropathophysiology of migraine.⁶² Caffeine has analgesic properties at doses greater than 65 to 200 mg and augments the effects of analgesics such as acetaminophen and aspirin. Chronic caffeine use can lead to withdrawal symptoms when intake is stopped abruptly; this is thought to be due to upregulation of adenosine receptors, but the effect varies based on genetic predisposition.¹⁹

The risk of chronic daily headache may relate to high use of caffeine preceding the onset of chronification, and caffeine abstinence may improve response to acute migraine treatment.^19,63 There is a dose-dependent risk of headache.^64,65 Current recommendations suggest limiting caffeine consumption to less than 200 mg per day or stopping caffeine consumption altogether based on the quantity required for caffeine-withdrawal headache.⁶⁶ Varying  the caffeine dose from day to day may also trigger headache due to the high sensitivity to caffeine withdrawal.

While many diets have shown potential benefit in patients with migraine, more studies are needed before any one “migraine diet” can be recommended. Caution should be taken, as there is risk of adverse effects from nutrient deficiencies or excess levels, especially if the patient is not under the care of a healthcare professional who is familiar with the diet.

Whether it is beneficial to avoid specific food triggers at this time is unclear and still controversial even within the migraine community because some of these foods may be misattributed as triggers instead of premonitory cravings driven by the hypothalamus. It is important to counsel patients with migraine to eat a healthy diet with consistent meals, to maintain adequate hydration, and to keep their caffeine intake low or at least consistent, although these teachings are predominantly based on limited studies with extrapolation from nutrition research.

D IS FOR DIARY

A headache diary is a recommended part of headache management and may enhance the accuracy of diagnosis and assist in treatment modifications. Paper and electronic diaries have been used. Electronic diaries may be more accurate for real-time use, but patients may be more likely to complete a paper one.⁶⁷ Patients prefer electronic diaries over long paper forms,⁶⁸ but a practical issue to consider is easy electronic access.

Patients can start keeping a headache diary before the initial consultation to assist with diagnosis, or early in their management. A first-appointment diary mailed with instructions is a feasible option.⁶⁹ These types of diaries ask detailed questions to help diagnose all major primary headache types including menstrual migraine and to identify concomitant medication-overuse headache. Physicians and patients generally report improved communication with use of a diary.⁷⁰

Some providers distinguish between a headache diary and a calendar. In standard practice, a headache diary is the general term referring to both, but the literature differentiates between the two. Both should at least include headache frequency, with possible inclusion of other factors such as headache duration, headache intensity, analgesic use, headache impact on function, and absenteeism. Potential triggers including menses can also be tracked. The calendar version can fit on a single page and can be used for simple tracking of headache frequency and analgesia use.

One of the simplest calendars to use is the “stoplight” calendar. Red days are when a patient is completely debilitated in bed. On a yellow day, function at work, school, or daily activities is significantly reduced by migraine, but the patient is not bedbound. A green day is when headache is present but function is not affected. No color is placed if the patient is 100% headache-free.

Acute treatment use can be written in or, to improve compliance, a checkmark can be placed on days of treatment. Patients who are tracking menses circle the days of menstruation. The calendar-diary should be brought to every appointment to track treatment response and medication use.

THE SECOND S IS FOR STRESS

Behavioral management such as cognitive behavioral therapy in migraine has been shown to decrease catastrophizing, migraine disability, and headache severity and frequency.⁷⁴ Both depression and anxiety can improve along with migraine.⁷⁵ Cognitive behavioral therapy can be provided in individualized sessions or group sessions, either in person or online.^74,76,77 The effects become more prominent about 5 weeks into treatment.⁷⁸

Biofeedback, which uses behavioral techniques paired with physiologic autonomic measures, has been extensively studied, and shows benefit in migraine, including in meta-analysis.⁷⁹ The types of biofeedback measurements used include electromyography, electroencephalography, temperature, sweat sensors, heart rate, blood volume pulse feedback, and respiration bands. While biofeedback is generally done under the guidance of a therapist, it can still be useful with minimal therapist contact and supplemental audio.⁸⁰

Mindfulness, or the awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations in the present moment without judgment, is a behavioral technique that can be done alone or paired with another technique. It is often taught through a mindfulness-based stress-reduction  program, which relies on a standardized approach. A meta-analysis showed that mindfulness improves pain intensity, headache frequency, disability, self-efficacy, and quality of life.⁸¹ It may work by encouraging pain acceptance.⁸²

Relaxation techniques are also employed in migraine management, either alone or in conjunction with techniques mentioned  above, such as mindfulness. They include progressive muscle relaxation and deep breathing. Relaxation has been shown to be effective when done by professional trainers as well as lay trainers in both individual and group settings.^83,84

In patients with intractable headache, more-intensive inpatient and outpatient programs have been tried. Inpatient admissions with multidisciplinary programs that include a focus on behavioral techniques often paired with lifestyle education and sometimes pharmacologic management can be beneficial.^85,86 These programs have also been successfully conducted as multiple outpatient sessions.^86–88

Stress management is an important aspect of migraine management. These treatments often involve homework and require active participation.

LIFESTYLE FOR ALL

All patients with migraine should initiate lifestyle modifications (see Advice to patients with migraine: SEEDS for success). Modifications with the highest level of evidence, specifically behavioral techniques, have had the most reproducible results. A headache diary is an essential tool to identify patterns and needs for optimization of acute or preventive treatment regimens. The strongest evidence is for the behavioral management techniques for stress reduction.

Migraine is the second leading cause of years of life lived with a disability globally.¹ It affects people of all ages, but particularly during the years associated with the highest productivity in terms of work and family life.

Migraine is a genetic neurologic disease that can be influenced or triggered by environmental factors. However, triggers do not cause migraine. For example, stress does not cause migraine, but it can exacerbate it.

Primary care physicians can help patients reduce the likelihood of a migraine attack, the severity of symptoms, or both by offering lifestyle counseling centered around the mnemonic SEEDS: sleep, exercise, eat, diary, and stress. In this article, each factor is discussed individually for its current support in the literature along with best-practice recommendations.

S IS FOR SLEEP

Before optimizing sleep hygiene, screen for sleep apnea, especially in those who have chronic daily headache upon awakening. An excellent tool is the STOP-Bang screening questionnaire⁵ (www.stopbang.ca/osa/screening.php). Patients respond “yes” or “no” to the following questions:

• Snoring: Do you snore loudly (louder than talking or loud enough to be heard through closed doors)?
• Tired: Do you often feel tired, fatigued, or sleepy during the daytime?
• Observed: Has anyone observed you stop breathing during your sleep?
• Pressure: Do you have or are you being treated for high blood pressure?
• Body mass index greater than 35 kg/m²?
• Age over 50?
• Neck circumference larger than 40 cm (females) or  42 cm (males)?
• Gender—male?

Each “yes” answer is scored as 1 point. A score less than 3 indicates low risk of obstructive sleep apnea; 3 to 4 indicates moderate risk; and 5 or more indicates high risk. Optimization of sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure therapy can improve sleep apnea headache.⁶ The improved sleep from reduced arousals may also mitigate migraine symptoms.

Behavioral modification for sleep hygiene can convert chronic migraine to episodic migraine.⁷ One such program is stimulus control therapy, which focuses on using cues to initiate sleep (Table 1). Patients are encouraged to keep the bedroom quiet, dark, and cool, and to go to sleep at the same time every night. Importantly, the bed should be associated only with sleep. If patients are unable to fall asleep within 20 to 30 minutes, they should leave the room so they do not associate the bed with frustration and anxiety. Use of phones, tablets, and television in the bedroom is discouraged as these devices may make it more difficult to fall asleep.⁸

The next option is sleep restriction, which is useful for comorbid insomnia. Patients keep a sleep diary to better understand their sleep-wake cycle. The goal is 90% sleep efficiency, meaning that 90% of the time in bed (TIB) is spent asleep. For example, if the patient is in bed 8 hours but asleep only 4 hours, sleep efficiency is 50%. The goal is to reduce TIB to match the time asleep and to agree on a prescribed daily wake-up time. When the patient is consistently sleeping 90% of the TIB, add 30-minute increments until he or she is appropriately sleeping 7 to 8 hours at night.⁹ Naps are not recommended.

Let patients know that their migraine may worsen until a new routine sleep pattern emerges. This method is not recommended for patients with untreated sleep apnea.

E IS FOR EXERCISE

Exercise is broadly recommended for a healthy lifestyle; some evidence suggests that it can also be useful in the management of migraine.¹⁰ Low levels of physical activity and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with migraine.¹¹ It is unclear if patients with migraine are less likely to exercise because they want to avoid triggering a migraine or if a sedentary lifestyle increases their risk.

Exercise has been studied for its prophylactic benefits in migraine, and one hypothesis relates to beta-endorphins. Levels of beta-endorphins are reduced in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine.¹² Exercise programs may increase levels while reducing headache frequency and duration.¹³ One study showed that pain thresholds do not change with exercise programs, suggesting that it is avoidance behavior that is positively altered rather than the underlying pain pathways.¹⁴

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 5 randomized controlled trials and 1 nonrandomized controlled clinical trial showed that exercise reduced monthly migraine days by only 0.6 (± 0.3) days, but the data also suggested that as the exercise intensity increased, so did the positive effects.¹⁰

Some data suggest that exercise may also reduce migraine duration and severity as well as the need for abortive medication.¹⁰ Two studies in this systematic review^15,16 showed that exercise benefits were equivalent to those of migraine preventives such as amitriptyline and topiramate; the combination of amitriptyline and exercise was more beneficial than exercise alone. Multiple types of exercise were beneficial, including walking, jogging, cross-training, and cycling when done for least 6 weeks and for 30 to 50 minutes 3 to 5 times a week.

These findings are in line with the current recommendations for general health from the American College of Sports Medicine, ie, moderate to vigorous cardio­respiratory exercise for 30 to 60 minutes 3 to 5 times a week (or 150 minutes per week). The daily exercise can be continuous or done in intervals of less than 20 minutes. For those with a sedentary lifestyle, as is seen in a significant proportion of the migraine population, light to moderate exercise for less than 20 minutes is still beneficial.¹⁷

Based on this evidence, the best current recommendation for patients with migraine is to engage in graded moderate cardiorespiratory exercise, although any exercise is better than none. If a patient is sedentary or has poor exercise tolerance, or both, exercising once a week for shorter time periods may be a manageable place to start.

Some patients may identify exercise as a trigger or exacerbating factor in migraine. These patients may need appropriate prophylactic and abortive therapies before starting an exercise regimen.

THE SECOND E IS FOR EAT (FOOD AND DRINK)

Many patients believe that some foods trigger migraine attacks, but further study is needed. The most consistent food triggers appear to be red wine and caffeine (withdrawal).^18,19 Interestingly, patients with migraine report low levels of alcohol consumption,²⁰ but it is unclear if that is because alcohol has a protective effect or if patients avoid it.

Some patients may crave certain foods in the prodromal phase of an attack, eat the food, experience the attack, and falsely conclude that the food caused the attack.²¹ Premonitory symptoms include fatigue, cognitive changes, homeostatic changes, sensory hyperresponsiveness, and food cravings.²¹ It is difficult to distinguish between premonitory phase food cravings and true triggers because premonitory symptoms can precede headache by 48 to 72 hours, and the timing for a trigger to be considered causal is not known.²²

Chocolate is often thought to be a migraine trigger, but the evidence argues against this and even suggests that sweet cravings are a part of the premonitory phase.²³ Monosodium glutamate is often identified as a trigger as well, but the literature is inconsistent and does not support a causal relationship.²⁴ Identifying true food triggers in migraine is difficult, and patients with migraine may have poor quality diets, with some foods acting as true triggers for certain patients.²⁵ These possibilities have led to the development of many “migraine diets,” including elimination diets.

Elimination diets

Elimination diets involve avoiding specific food items over a period of time and then adding them back in one at a time to gauge whether they cause a reaction in the body. A number of these diets have been studied for their effects on headache and migraine:

Gluten-free diets restrict foods that contain wheat, rye, and barley. A systematic review of gluten-free diets in patients with celiac disease found that headache or migraine frequency decreased by 51.6% to 100% based on multiple cohort studies (N = 42,388).²⁶ There are no studies on the use of a gluten-free diet for migraine in patients without celiac disease.

Immunoglobulin G-elimination diets restrict foods that serve as antigens for IgG. However, data supporting these diets are inconsistent. Two small randomized controlled trials found that the diets improved migraine symptoms, but a larger study found no improvement in the number of migraine days at 12 weeks, although there was an initially significant effect at 4 weeks.^27–29

Antihistamine diets restrict foods that have high levels of histamines, including fermented dairy, vegetables, soy products,  wine, beer, alcohol, and those that cause histamine release regardless of IgE testing results. A prospective single-arm study of antihistamine diets in patients with chronic headache reported symptom improvement, which could be applied to certain comorbidities such as  mast cell activation syndrome.³⁰ Another prospective nonrandomized controlled study eliminated foods based on positive IgE skin-prick testing for allergy in patients with recurrent migraine and found that it reduced headache frequency.³¹

Tyramine-free diets are often recommended due to the presumption that tyramine-containing foods (eg, aged cheese, cured or smoked meats and fish, and beer) are triggers. However, multiple studies have reviewed this theory with inconsistent results,³² and the only study of a tyramine-free diet was negative.³³ In addition, commonly purported high-tyramine foods have lower tyramine levels than previously thought.³⁴

Low-fat diets in migraine are supported by 2 small randomized controlled trials and a prospective study showing a decrease in symptom severity; the results for frequency are inconsistent.^35–37

Low-glycemic index diets are supported in migraine by 1 randomized controlled trial that showed improvement in migraine frequency in a diet group and in a control group of patients who took a standard migraine-preventive medication to manage their symptoms.³⁸

Other migraine diets

Diets high in certain foods or ingredient ratios, as opposed to elimination diets, have also been studied in patients with migraine. One promising diet containing high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of omega-6 fatty acids was shown in a systematic review to reduce the duration of migraine but not the frequency or severity.³⁹ A more recent randomized controlled trial of this diet in chronic migraine also showed that it decreased migraine frequency.⁴⁰

The ketogenic diet (high fat, low carbohydrate) had promising results in a randomized controlled trial in overweight women with migraine and in a prospective study.^41,42 However, a prospective study of the Atkins diet in teenagers with chronic daily headaches showed no benefit.⁴³ The ketogenic diet is difficult to follow and may work in part due to weight loss alone, although ketogenesis itself may also play a role.^41,44

Sodium levels have been shown to be higher in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine than in controls, particularly during an attack.⁴⁵ For a prehypertensive population or an elderly population, a low-sodium diet may be beneficial based on 2 prospective trials.^46,47 However, a younger female population without hypertension and low-to-normal body mass index had a reduced probability of migraine while consuming a high-sodium diet.⁴⁸

Counseling about sodium intake should be tailored to specific patient populations. For example, a diet low in sodium may be appropriate for patients with vascular risk factors such as hypertension, whereas a high-sodium diet may be appropriate in patients with comorbidities like postural tachycardia syndrome or in those with a propensity for low blood pressure or low body mass index.

Encourage routine meals and hydration

The standard advice for patients with migraine is to consume regular meals. Headaches have been associated with fasting, and those with migraine are predisposed to attacks in the setting of fasting.^49,50 Migraine is more common when meals are skipped, particularly breakfast.⁵¹

It is unclear how fasting lowers the migraine threshold. Nutritional studies show that skipping meals, particularly breakfast, increases low-grade inflammation and impairs  glucose metabolism by affecting insulin and fat oxidation metabolism.⁵² However, hypoglycemia itself is not a consistent cause of headache or migraine attacks.⁵³ As described above, a randomized controlled trial of a low-glycemic index diet actually decreased migraine frequency and severity.³⁸ Skipping meals also reduces energy and is associated with reduced physical activity, perhaps leading to multiple compounding triggers that further lower the migraine threshold.^54,55

When counseling patients about the need to eat breakfast, consider what they normally consume (eg, is breakfast just a cup of coffee?). Replacing simple carbohydrates with protein, fats, and fiber may be beneficial for general health, but the effects on migraine are not known, nor is the optimal composition of breakfast foods.⁵⁵

The optimal timing of breakfast relative to awakening is also unclear, but in general, it should be eaten within 30 to 60 minutes of rising. Also consider patients’ work hours—delayed-phase or shift workers have altered sleep cycles.

Recommendations vary in regard to hydration. Headache is associated with fluid restriction and dehydration,^56,57 but only a few studies suggest that rehydration and increased hydration status can improve migraine.⁵⁸ In fact, a single post hoc analysis of a metoclopramide study showed that intravenous fluid alone for patients with migraine in the emergency room did not improve pain outcomes.⁵⁹

The amount of water patients should drink daily in the setting of migraine is also unknown, but a study showed benefit with 4 L, which equates to a daily intake of 16 eight-ounce glasses.⁶⁰ One review on general health that could be extrapolated given the low risk of the intervention indicated that 1.8 L daily (7 to 8 eight-ounce glasses) promoted a euhydration status in most people, although many factors contribute to hydration status.⁶¹

Caffeine intake is also a major consideration. Caffeine is a nonspecific adenosine receptor antagonist that modulates adenosine receptors like the pronociceptive 2A receptor, leading to changes integral to the neuropathophysiology of migraine.⁶² Caffeine has analgesic properties at doses greater than 65 to 200 mg and augments the effects of analgesics such as acetaminophen and aspirin. Chronic caffeine use can lead to withdrawal symptoms when intake is stopped abruptly; this is thought to be due to upregulation of adenosine receptors, but the effect varies based on genetic predisposition.¹⁹

The risk of chronic daily headache may relate to high use of caffeine preceding the onset of chronification, and caffeine abstinence may improve response to acute migraine treatment.^19,63 There is a dose-dependent risk of headache.^64,65 Current recommendations suggest limiting caffeine consumption to less than 200 mg per day or stopping caffeine consumption altogether based on the quantity required for caffeine-withdrawal headache.⁶⁶ Varying  the caffeine dose from day to day may also trigger headache due to the high sensitivity to caffeine withdrawal.

While many diets have shown potential benefit in patients with migraine, more studies are needed before any one “migraine diet” can be recommended. Caution should be taken, as there is risk of adverse effects from nutrient deficiencies or excess levels, especially if the patient is not under the care of a healthcare professional who is familiar with the diet.

Whether it is beneficial to avoid specific food triggers at this time is unclear and still controversial even within the migraine community because some of these foods may be misattributed as triggers instead of premonitory cravings driven by the hypothalamus. It is important to counsel patients with migraine to eat a healthy diet with consistent meals, to maintain adequate hydration, and to keep their caffeine intake low or at least consistent, although these teachings are predominantly based on limited studies with extrapolation from nutrition research.

D IS FOR DIARY

A headache diary is a recommended part of headache management and may enhance the accuracy of diagnosis and assist in treatment modifications. Paper and electronic diaries have been used. Electronic diaries may be more accurate for real-time use, but patients may be more likely to complete a paper one.⁶⁷ Patients prefer electronic diaries over long paper forms,⁶⁸ but a practical issue to consider is easy electronic access.

Patients can start keeping a headache diary before the initial consultation to assist with diagnosis, or early in their management. A first-appointment diary mailed with instructions is a feasible option.⁶⁹ These types of diaries ask detailed questions to help diagnose all major primary headache types including menstrual migraine and to identify concomitant medication-overuse headache. Physicians and patients generally report improved communication with use of a diary.⁷⁰

Some providers distinguish between a headache diary and a calendar. In standard practice, a headache diary is the general term referring to both, but the literature differentiates between the two. Both should at least include headache frequency, with possible inclusion of other factors such as headache duration, headache intensity, analgesic use, headache impact on function, and absenteeism. Potential triggers including menses can also be tracked. The calendar version can fit on a single page and can be used for simple tracking of headache frequency and analgesia use.

One of the simplest calendars to use is the “stoplight” calendar. Red days are when a patient is completely debilitated in bed. On a yellow day, function at work, school, or daily activities is significantly reduced by migraine, but the patient is not bedbound. A green day is when headache is present but function is not affected. No color is placed if the patient is 100% headache-free.

Acute treatment use can be written in or, to improve compliance, a checkmark can be placed on days of treatment. Patients who are tracking menses circle the days of menstruation. The calendar-diary should be brought to every appointment to track treatment response and medication use.

THE SECOND S IS FOR STRESS

Behavioral management such as cognitive behavioral therapy in migraine has been shown to decrease catastrophizing, migraine disability, and headache severity and frequency.⁷⁴ Both depression and anxiety can improve along with migraine.⁷⁵ Cognitive behavioral therapy can be provided in individualized sessions or group sessions, either in person or online.^74,76,77 The effects become more prominent about 5 weeks into treatment.⁷⁸

Biofeedback, which uses behavioral techniques paired with physiologic autonomic measures, has been extensively studied, and shows benefit in migraine, including in meta-analysis.⁷⁹ The types of biofeedback measurements used include electromyography, electroencephalography, temperature, sweat sensors, heart rate, blood volume pulse feedback, and respiration bands. While biofeedback is generally done under the guidance of a therapist, it can still be useful with minimal therapist contact and supplemental audio.⁸⁰

Mindfulness, or the awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations in the present moment without judgment, is a behavioral technique that can be done alone or paired with another technique. It is often taught through a mindfulness-based stress-reduction  program, which relies on a standardized approach. A meta-analysis showed that mindfulness improves pain intensity, headache frequency, disability, self-efficacy, and quality of life.⁸¹ It may work by encouraging pain acceptance.⁸²

Relaxation techniques are also employed in migraine management, either alone or in conjunction with techniques mentioned  above, such as mindfulness. They include progressive muscle relaxation and deep breathing. Relaxation has been shown to be effective when done by professional trainers as well as lay trainers in both individual and group settings.^83,84

In patients with intractable headache, more-intensive inpatient and outpatient programs have been tried. Inpatient admissions with multidisciplinary programs that include a focus on behavioral techniques often paired with lifestyle education and sometimes pharmacologic management can be beneficial.^85,86 These programs have also been successfully conducted as multiple outpatient sessions.^86–88

Stress management is an important aspect of migraine management. These treatments often involve homework and require active participation.

LIFESTYLE FOR ALL

All patients with migraine should initiate lifestyle modifications (see Advice to patients with migraine: SEEDS for success). Modifications with the highest level of evidence, specifically behavioral techniques, have had the most reproducible results. A headache diary is an essential tool to identify patterns and needs for optimization of acute or preventive treatment regimens. The strongest evidence is for the behavioral management techniques for stress reduction.

Migraine is the second leading cause of years of life lived with a disability globally.¹ It affects people of all ages, but particularly during the years associated with the highest productivity in terms of work and family life.

Migraine is a genetic neurologic disease that can be influenced or triggered by environmental factors. However, triggers do not cause migraine. For example, stress does not cause migraine, but it can exacerbate it.

Primary care physicians can help patients reduce the likelihood of a migraine attack, the severity of symptoms, or both by offering lifestyle counseling centered around the mnemonic SEEDS: sleep, exercise, eat, diary, and stress. In this article, each factor is discussed individually for its current support in the literature along with best-practice recommendations.

S IS FOR SLEEP

Before optimizing sleep hygiene, screen for sleep apnea, especially in those who have chronic daily headache upon awakening. An excellent tool is the STOP-Bang screening questionnaire⁵ (www.stopbang.ca/osa/screening.php). Patients respond “yes” or “no” to the following questions:

• Snoring: Do you snore loudly (louder than talking or loud enough to be heard through closed doors)?
• Tired: Do you often feel tired, fatigued, or sleepy during the daytime?
• Observed: Has anyone observed you stop breathing during your sleep?
• Pressure: Do you have or are you being treated for high blood pressure?
• Body mass index greater than 35 kg/m²?
• Age over 50?
• Neck circumference larger than 40 cm (females) or  42 cm (males)?
• Gender—male?

Each “yes” answer is scored as 1 point. A score less than 3 indicates low risk of obstructive sleep apnea; 3 to 4 indicates moderate risk; and 5 or more indicates high risk. Optimization of sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure therapy can improve sleep apnea headache.⁶ The improved sleep from reduced arousals may also mitigate migraine symptoms.

Behavioral modification for sleep hygiene can convert chronic migraine to episodic migraine.⁷ One such program is stimulus control therapy, which focuses on using cues to initiate sleep (Table 1). Patients are encouraged to keep the bedroom quiet, dark, and cool, and to go to sleep at the same time every night. Importantly, the bed should be associated only with sleep. If patients are unable to fall asleep within 20 to 30 minutes, they should leave the room so they do not associate the bed with frustration and anxiety. Use of phones, tablets, and television in the bedroom is discouraged as these devices may make it more difficult to fall asleep.⁸

The next option is sleep restriction, which is useful for comorbid insomnia. Patients keep a sleep diary to better understand their sleep-wake cycle. The goal is 90% sleep efficiency, meaning that 90% of the time in bed (TIB) is spent asleep. For example, if the patient is in bed 8 hours but asleep only 4 hours, sleep efficiency is 50%. The goal is to reduce TIB to match the time asleep and to agree on a prescribed daily wake-up time. When the patient is consistently sleeping 90% of the TIB, add 30-minute increments until he or she is appropriately sleeping 7 to 8 hours at night.⁹ Naps are not recommended.

Let patients know that their migraine may worsen until a new routine sleep pattern emerges. This method is not recommended for patients with untreated sleep apnea.

E IS FOR EXERCISE

Exercise is broadly recommended for a healthy lifestyle; some evidence suggests that it can also be useful in the management of migraine.¹⁰ Low levels of physical activity and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with migraine.¹¹ It is unclear if patients with migraine are less likely to exercise because they want to avoid triggering a migraine or if a sedentary lifestyle increases their risk.

Exercise has been studied for its prophylactic benefits in migraine, and one hypothesis relates to beta-endorphins. Levels of beta-endorphins are reduced in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine.¹² Exercise programs may increase levels while reducing headache frequency and duration.¹³ One study showed that pain thresholds do not change with exercise programs, suggesting that it is avoidance behavior that is positively altered rather than the underlying pain pathways.¹⁴

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 5 randomized controlled trials and 1 nonrandomized controlled clinical trial showed that exercise reduced monthly migraine days by only 0.6 (± 0.3) days, but the data also suggested that as the exercise intensity increased, so did the positive effects.¹⁰

Some data suggest that exercise may also reduce migraine duration and severity as well as the need for abortive medication.¹⁰ Two studies in this systematic review^15,16 showed that exercise benefits were equivalent to those of migraine preventives such as amitriptyline and topiramate; the combination of amitriptyline and exercise was more beneficial than exercise alone. Multiple types of exercise were beneficial, including walking, jogging, cross-training, and cycling when done for least 6 weeks and for 30 to 50 minutes 3 to 5 times a week.

These findings are in line with the current recommendations for general health from the American College of Sports Medicine, ie, moderate to vigorous cardio­respiratory exercise for 30 to 60 minutes 3 to 5 times a week (or 150 minutes per week). The daily exercise can be continuous or done in intervals of less than 20 minutes. For those with a sedentary lifestyle, as is seen in a significant proportion of the migraine population, light to moderate exercise for less than 20 minutes is still beneficial.¹⁷

Based on this evidence, the best current recommendation for patients with migraine is to engage in graded moderate cardiorespiratory exercise, although any exercise is better than none. If a patient is sedentary or has poor exercise tolerance, or both, exercising once a week for shorter time periods may be a manageable place to start.

Some patients may identify exercise as a trigger or exacerbating factor in migraine. These patients may need appropriate prophylactic and abortive therapies before starting an exercise regimen.

THE SECOND E IS FOR EAT (FOOD AND DRINK)

Many patients believe that some foods trigger migraine attacks, but further study is needed. The most consistent food triggers appear to be red wine and caffeine (withdrawal).^18,19 Interestingly, patients with migraine report low levels of alcohol consumption,²⁰ but it is unclear if that is because alcohol has a protective effect or if patients avoid it.

Some patients may crave certain foods in the prodromal phase of an attack, eat the food, experience the attack, and falsely conclude that the food caused the attack.²¹ Premonitory symptoms include fatigue, cognitive changes, homeostatic changes, sensory hyperresponsiveness, and food cravings.²¹ It is difficult to distinguish between premonitory phase food cravings and true triggers because premonitory symptoms can precede headache by 48 to 72 hours, and the timing for a trigger to be considered causal is not known.²²

Chocolate is often thought to be a migraine trigger, but the evidence argues against this and even suggests that sweet cravings are a part of the premonitory phase.²³ Monosodium glutamate is often identified as a trigger as well, but the literature is inconsistent and does not support a causal relationship.²⁴ Identifying true food triggers in migraine is difficult, and patients with migraine may have poor quality diets, with some foods acting as true triggers for certain patients.²⁵ These possibilities have led to the development of many “migraine diets,” including elimination diets.

Elimination diets

Elimination diets involve avoiding specific food items over a period of time and then adding them back in one at a time to gauge whether they cause a reaction in the body. A number of these diets have been studied for their effects on headache and migraine:

Gluten-free diets restrict foods that contain wheat, rye, and barley. A systematic review of gluten-free diets in patients with celiac disease found that headache or migraine frequency decreased by 51.6% to 100% based on multiple cohort studies (N = 42,388).²⁶ There are no studies on the use of a gluten-free diet for migraine in patients without celiac disease.

Immunoglobulin G-elimination diets restrict foods that serve as antigens for IgG. However, data supporting these diets are inconsistent. Two small randomized controlled trials found that the diets improved migraine symptoms, but a larger study found no improvement in the number of migraine days at 12 weeks, although there was an initially significant effect at 4 weeks.^27–29

Antihistamine diets restrict foods that have high levels of histamines, including fermented dairy, vegetables, soy products,  wine, beer, alcohol, and those that cause histamine release regardless of IgE testing results. A prospective single-arm study of antihistamine diets in patients with chronic headache reported symptom improvement, which could be applied to certain comorbidities such as  mast cell activation syndrome.³⁰ Another prospective nonrandomized controlled study eliminated foods based on positive IgE skin-prick testing for allergy in patients with recurrent migraine and found that it reduced headache frequency.³¹

Tyramine-free diets are often recommended due to the presumption that tyramine-containing foods (eg, aged cheese, cured or smoked meats and fish, and beer) are triggers. However, multiple studies have reviewed this theory with inconsistent results,³² and the only study of a tyramine-free diet was negative.³³ In addition, commonly purported high-tyramine foods have lower tyramine levels than previously thought.³⁴

Low-fat diets in migraine are supported by 2 small randomized controlled trials and a prospective study showing a decrease in symptom severity; the results for frequency are inconsistent.^35–37

Low-glycemic index diets are supported in migraine by 1 randomized controlled trial that showed improvement in migraine frequency in a diet group and in a control group of patients who took a standard migraine-preventive medication to manage their symptoms.³⁸

Other migraine diets

Diets high in certain foods or ingredient ratios, as opposed to elimination diets, have also been studied in patients with migraine. One promising diet containing high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of omega-6 fatty acids was shown in a systematic review to reduce the duration of migraine but not the frequency or severity.³⁹ A more recent randomized controlled trial of this diet in chronic migraine also showed that it decreased migraine frequency.⁴⁰

The ketogenic diet (high fat, low carbohydrate) had promising results in a randomized controlled trial in overweight women with migraine and in a prospective study.^41,42 However, a prospective study of the Atkins diet in teenagers with chronic daily headaches showed no benefit.⁴³ The ketogenic diet is difficult to follow and may work in part due to weight loss alone, although ketogenesis itself may also play a role.^41,44

Sodium levels have been shown to be higher in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine than in controls, particularly during an attack.⁴⁵ For a prehypertensive population or an elderly population, a low-sodium diet may be beneficial based on 2 prospective trials.^46,47 However, a younger female population without hypertension and low-to-normal body mass index had a reduced probability of migraine while consuming a high-sodium diet.⁴⁸

Counseling about sodium intake should be tailored to specific patient populations. For example, a diet low in sodium may be appropriate for patients with vascular risk factors such as hypertension, whereas a high-sodium diet may be appropriate in patients with comorbidities like postural tachycardia syndrome or in those with a propensity for low blood pressure or low body mass index.

Encourage routine meals and hydration

The standard advice for patients with migraine is to consume regular meals. Headaches have been associated with fasting, and those with migraine are predisposed to attacks in the setting of fasting.^49,50 Migraine is more common when meals are skipped, particularly breakfast.⁵¹

It is unclear how fasting lowers the migraine threshold. Nutritional studies show that skipping meals, particularly breakfast, increases low-grade inflammation and impairs  glucose metabolism by affecting insulin and fat oxidation metabolism.⁵² However, hypoglycemia itself is not a consistent cause of headache or migraine attacks.⁵³ As described above, a randomized controlled trial of a low-glycemic index diet actually decreased migraine frequency and severity.³⁸ Skipping meals also reduces energy and is associated with reduced physical activity, perhaps leading to multiple compounding triggers that further lower the migraine threshold.^54,55

When counseling patients about the need to eat breakfast, consider what they normally consume (eg, is breakfast just a cup of coffee?). Replacing simple carbohydrates with protein, fats, and fiber may be beneficial for general health, but the effects on migraine are not known, nor is the optimal composition of breakfast foods.⁵⁵

The optimal timing of breakfast relative to awakening is also unclear, but in general, it should be eaten within 30 to 60 minutes of rising. Also consider patients’ work hours—delayed-phase or shift workers have altered sleep cycles.

Recommendations vary in regard to hydration. Headache is associated with fluid restriction and dehydration,^56,57 but only a few studies suggest that rehydration and increased hydration status can improve migraine.⁵⁸ In fact, a single post hoc analysis of a metoclopramide study showed that intravenous fluid alone for patients with migraine in the emergency room did not improve pain outcomes.⁵⁹

The amount of water patients should drink daily in the setting of migraine is also unknown, but a study showed benefit with 4 L, which equates to a daily intake of 16 eight-ounce glasses.⁶⁰ One review on general health that could be extrapolated given the low risk of the intervention indicated that 1.8 L daily (7 to 8 eight-ounce glasses) promoted a euhydration status in most people, although many factors contribute to hydration status.⁶¹

Caffeine intake is also a major consideration. Caffeine is a nonspecific adenosine receptor antagonist that modulates adenosine receptors like the pronociceptive 2A receptor, leading to changes integral to the neuropathophysiology of migraine.⁶² Caffeine has analgesic properties at doses greater than 65 to 200 mg and augments the effects of analgesics such as acetaminophen and aspirin. Chronic caffeine use can lead to withdrawal symptoms when intake is stopped abruptly; this is thought to be due to upregulation of adenosine receptors, but the effect varies based on genetic predisposition.¹⁹

The risk of chronic daily headache may relate to high use of caffeine preceding the onset of chronification, and caffeine abstinence may improve response to acute migraine treatment.^19,63 There is a dose-dependent risk of headache.^64,65 Current recommendations suggest limiting caffeine consumption to less than 200 mg per day or stopping caffeine consumption altogether based on the quantity required for caffeine-withdrawal headache.⁶⁶ Varying  the caffeine dose from day to day may also trigger headache due to the high sensitivity to caffeine withdrawal.

While many diets have shown potential benefit in patients with migraine, more studies are needed before any one “migraine diet” can be recommended. Caution should be taken, as there is risk of adverse effects from nutrient deficiencies or excess levels, especially if the patient is not under the care of a healthcare professional who is familiar with the diet.

Whether it is beneficial to avoid specific food triggers at this time is unclear and still controversial even within the migraine community because some of these foods may be misattributed as triggers instead of premonitory cravings driven by the hypothalamus. It is important to counsel patients with migraine to eat a healthy diet with consistent meals, to maintain adequate hydration, and to keep their caffeine intake low or at least consistent, although these teachings are predominantly based on limited studies with extrapolation from nutrition research.

D IS FOR DIARY

A headache diary is a recommended part of headache management and may enhance the accuracy of diagnosis and assist in treatment modifications. Paper and electronic diaries have been used. Electronic diaries may be more accurate for real-time use, but patients may be more likely to complete a paper one.⁶⁷ Patients prefer electronic diaries over long paper forms,⁶⁸ but a practical issue to consider is easy electronic access.

Patients can start keeping a headache diary before the initial consultation to assist with diagnosis, or early in their management. A first-appointment diary mailed with instructions is a feasible option.⁶⁹ These types of diaries ask detailed questions to help diagnose all major primary headache types including menstrual migraine and to identify concomitant medication-overuse headache. Physicians and patients generally report improved communication with use of a diary.⁷⁰

Some providers distinguish between a headache diary and a calendar. In standard practice, a headache diary is the general term referring to both, but the literature differentiates between the two. Both should at least include headache frequency, with possible inclusion of other factors such as headache duration, headache intensity, analgesic use, headache impact on function, and absenteeism. Potential triggers including menses can also be tracked. The calendar version can fit on a single page and can be used for simple tracking of headache frequency and analgesia use.

One of the simplest calendars to use is the “stoplight” calendar. Red days are when a patient is completely debilitated in bed. On a yellow day, function at work, school, or daily activities is significantly reduced by migraine, but the patient is not bedbound. A green day is when headache is present but function is not affected. No color is placed if the patient is 100% headache-free.

Acute treatment use can be written in or, to improve compliance, a checkmark can be placed on days of treatment. Patients who are tracking menses circle the days of menstruation. The calendar-diary should be brought to every appointment to track treatment response and medication use.

THE SECOND S IS FOR STRESS

Behavioral management such as cognitive behavioral therapy in migraine has been shown to decrease catastrophizing, migraine disability, and headache severity and frequency.⁷⁴ Both depression and anxiety can improve along with migraine.⁷⁵ Cognitive behavioral therapy can be provided in individualized sessions or group sessions, either in person or online.^74,76,77 The effects become more prominent about 5 weeks into treatment.⁷⁸

Biofeedback, which uses behavioral techniques paired with physiologic autonomic measures, has been extensively studied, and shows benefit in migraine, including in meta-analysis.⁷⁹ The types of biofeedback measurements used include electromyography, electroencephalography, temperature, sweat sensors, heart rate, blood volume pulse feedback, and respiration bands. While biofeedback is generally done under the guidance of a therapist, it can still be useful with minimal therapist contact and supplemental audio.⁸⁰

Mindfulness, or the awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations in the present moment without judgment, is a behavioral technique that can be done alone or paired with another technique. It is often taught through a mindfulness-based stress-reduction  program, which relies on a standardized approach. A meta-analysis showed that mindfulness improves pain intensity, headache frequency, disability, self-efficacy, and quality of life.⁸¹ It may work by encouraging pain acceptance.⁸²

Relaxation techniques are also employed in migraine management, either alone or in conjunction with techniques mentioned  above, such as mindfulness. They include progressive muscle relaxation and deep breathing. Relaxation has been shown to be effective when done by professional trainers as well as lay trainers in both individual and group settings.^83,84

In patients with intractable headache, more-intensive inpatient and outpatient programs have been tried. Inpatient admissions with multidisciplinary programs that include a focus on behavioral techniques often paired with lifestyle education and sometimes pharmacologic management can be beneficial.^85,86 These programs have also been successfully conducted as multiple outpatient sessions.^86–88

Stress management is an important aspect of migraine management. These treatments often involve homework and require active participation.

LIFESTYLE FOR ALL

All patients with migraine should initiate lifestyle modifications (see Advice to patients with migraine: SEEDS for success). Modifications with the highest level of evidence, specifically behavioral techniques, have had the most reproducible results. A headache diary is an essential tool to identify patterns and needs for optimization of acute or preventive treatment regimens. The strongest evidence is for the behavioral management techniques for stress reduction.

On May 24, 2011, a 53-year-old woman presented to a Wisconsin hospital emergency ­department (ED) with complaints of severe abdominal pain, a rapid heartbeat, and a fever of 101.3°F. During her 9-hour visit, she was treated by a PA and his supervising physician. She was seen by the physician for a total of 6 minutes; the rest of her care was provided by the PA. The patient was discharged around midnight with instructions to contact her gynecologist in the morning for management of uterine fibroids. At the time of discharge, her temperature was 102.9°F.

The following day, May 25, the patient collapsed in her home and was transported to another hospital. She was treated for septic shock from a group A streptococcus infection. Although the infection was halted, the patient sustained ischemic damage to her extremities and a month later required amputation of her 4 limbs.The plaintiff claimed that the supervising physician was negligent in failing to diagnose the strep A infection, which, left undetected, led to septic shock. She also alleged that the PA should have recognized the potential for her condition’s severity to quickly escalate. She maintained that the supervising physician should have been more involved in her case because of its complexity.

Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that the PA should have provided “alternative medical diagnoses,” which would have prompted consideration of other treatment options. The plaintiff contended that under Wisconsin’s informed consent law, both the PA and the physician failed to disclose enough information about her condition and failed to inform her of any choices for treatment.

The defense argued that the plaintiff received proper treatment based on the information available to the providers at the time.

VERDICT

The jury found for the plaintiff and apportioned 65% liability to the physician and 35% liability to the PA. A total of $25,342,096 was awarded to the plaintiff.

COMMENTARY

This is a huge verdict. Cases involving group A strep or necrotizing fasciitis frequently give rise to large medical malpractice verdicts, because everything about them is difficult to defend: Although there is typically trivial to no trauma involved, the wounds from these infections provide explicit images of damage, intra­operatively and postoperatively. Vasopressors required for hemodynamic support or sepsis itself frequently result in limb ischemia, gangrene, and amputation. In this case, the plaintiff, as a quadruple amputee, was a sympathetic and impressive courtroom presence—the personal toll was evident to anyone in the room.

Two providers—a PA and a physician—saw the patient. We are told only that she complained of severe abdominal pain, rapid heartbeat, and fever, which increased at some point during her ED stay. We aren’t given specifics on the rest of the patient’s vital signs or examination details. However, we can infer that the exam and lab findings were not impressive, because they weren’t mentioned in the case report. But as a result of the failure to catch the group A strep infection, the plaintiff suffered what one judge hearing the case described as a harrowing and unimaginable ordeal: the life-changing amputation of 4 limbs.¹ While the jury did not find the PA or physician negligent, they still found the clinicians liable and awarded a staggering verdict.

Continue to: How could this happen?

How could this happen? The answer is the theory of recovery: The jury found that the physician and the PA failed to provide the patient with informed consent in the form of “alternative medical diagnoses.”² The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the patient was never told a life-threatening bacterial infection was one possible diagnosis and claimed that if she had known, the patient would have pursued other treatment.

As in many malpractice cases, the plaintiff alleged failure to diagnose and failure to provide informed consent. Depending on state law, there are 3 standards for informed consent: subjective patient, reasonable patient, and reasonable physician.³ About half of the states have a physician-focused standard, while the other half have a patient-focused standard.³

Under the subjective patient standard, we would ask, “What would this patient need to know and understand to make an informed decision?”⁴ The subjective standard requires the clinician to essentially “get in the head” of a specific patient to determine what he or she would want to know when making a medical decision. This standard is problematic because it requires the clinician to have an intimate familiarity with the patient’s belief system and medical decision-making process—a daunting requirement for many clinicians, particularly in the absence of a longstanding clinician-patient relationship, as is the case in most emergency settings. Thankfully, the subjective patient standard is not followed by most states that have a patient-focused standard.

Under the objective reasonable patient standard, we would ask “What would the average patient need to know to be an informed participant in the decision?”⁴ One could argue that this standard more adequately allows the patient to be an active participant in shared decision-making. However, the drawback is that what is “reasonable” often falls on a spectrum, which would require the clinician to gauge the volume and type of information a patient cohort would want to have when making a medical decision. Under this standard, the plaintiff must prove that the clinician omitted information that a reasonable patient would want to know. Therefore, these standards are more friendly to the plaintiff, whereas the reasonable physician standard is more defendant friendly.

To meet the standard of care under a reasonable physician standard, information must be provided to the patient that a “reasonably prudent practitioner in the same field of practice or specialty” would provide to a patient.⁵ For a plaintiff to successfully sue under this standard, the plaintiff’s expert must testify that a reasonably prudent physician would have disclosed the omitted information.⁶ The reasonable physician standard is obviously better for malpractice defendants.

Continue to: While reasonable clinicians...

While reasonable clinicians can disagree (as can reasonable patients), clinicians are more likely to be closer in opinion. Clinicians are a smaller group whose opinions are underpinned by similar education, training, and experience. By contrast, among the general population, beliefs held by one hypothetical “reasonable person” are much less settled, and in some cases, wildly divergent from another’s. For example, vaccine skepticism would probably be considered unreasonable in the majority of jury pools but absolutely reasonable in some. The large size of the general population, coupled with opinions untethered to any definable discipline, make the reasonable patient standard hard to predict.

Additionally, the reasonable physician standard forces the plaintiff to prove his or her case by producing an expert witness (clinician) to specifically testify that the standard of care required the defendant clinician to disclose certain specific information, and that disclosure was lacking. That is an important requirement. Under patient-focused standards, the plaintiff doesn’t need a medical expert on this point and can simply argue to the jury that a reasonable patient would require an exhaustive discussion of each possibility in the differential diagnosis. Therefore, I would argue that the reasonable physician standard is more predictable and workable and should be followed.

At the time of this case, Wisconsin’s informed consent law was based on the reasonable patient standard. As a result of this case, Wisconsin lawmakers changed the law to a “reasonable physician standard,” which states “any physician who treats a patient shall inform the patient about the availability of reasonable alternate medical modes of treatment and about the benefits and risks of these treatments.”⁷ However, the law stipulates that this duty to inform does not require disclosure of (among others):

• Detailed technical information that in all probability a patient would not understand
• Risks apparent or known to the patient
• Extremely remote possibilities that might falsely or detrimentally alarm the patient
• Information about alternate medical modes of treatment for any condition the physician has not included in his or her diagnosis at the time the physician informs the patient.⁷

Finally, this case involved an extremely high verdict of more than $25 million. It may surprise you to learn that many states have caps for medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering. If you’re having a holiday dinner with friends or family members who are plaintiff’s attorneys and you’re itching for a good argument, skip current politics and go all-in: How about liability caps, Uncle Jim? Get ready for a lively debate.

Of the $25 million verdict, $16.5 million was awarded for pain and suffering—the jury was obviously shocked by the extent of the life-changing nature of the plaintiff’s injuries. At the time of this case, Wisconsin had a cap of $750,000 for noneconomic damages.⁸ However, plaintiffs may challenge state constitutionality of these caps when they feel they have the right case, which the plaintiff and her attorney felt they did. Two lower courts found the state cap unconstitutional and gave the plaintiff the full award. But the state Supreme Court later reversed that decision, upholding the cap.¹ The court decided that the legislature had a rational basis for making the law and changes to it should occur through the legislature, not the courts. The dissenting justices argued that there was no rational basis for the $750,000 cap, because there was no evidence that clinicians would flee the state fearing malpractice liability, or practice more defensive medicine, or suffer runaway malpractice insurance premiums without the cap. As a result of this case, the cap was upheld, and there was a “lively debate” on this issue at the highest levels of government.

Continue to: IN SUM

 

 

IN SUM

Become familiar with your state’s informed consent laws. Involve patients in decision-making, and convey information related to reasonable treatment options and risks. Document all of these discussions. Lastly, state-level political discussions on issues of tort reform, caps, and malpractice matters are ongoing—so take notice.

On May 24, 2011, a 53-year-old woman presented to a Wisconsin hospital emergency ­department (ED) with complaints of severe abdominal pain, a rapid heartbeat, and a fever of 101.3°F. During her 9-hour visit, she was treated by a PA and his supervising physician. She was seen by the physician for a total of 6 minutes; the rest of her care was provided by the PA. The patient was discharged around midnight with instructions to contact her gynecologist in the morning for management of uterine fibroids. At the time of discharge, her temperature was 102.9°F.

The following day, May 25, the patient collapsed in her home and was transported to another hospital. She was treated for septic shock from a group A streptococcus infection. Although the infection was halted, the patient sustained ischemic damage to her extremities and a month later required amputation of her 4 limbs.The plaintiff claimed that the supervising physician was negligent in failing to diagnose the strep A infection, which, left undetected, led to septic shock. She also alleged that the PA should have recognized the potential for her condition’s severity to quickly escalate. She maintained that the supervising physician should have been more involved in her case because of its complexity.

Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that the PA should have provided “alternative medical diagnoses,” which would have prompted consideration of other treatment options. The plaintiff contended that under Wisconsin’s informed consent law, both the PA and the physician failed to disclose enough information about her condition and failed to inform her of any choices for treatment.

The defense argued that the plaintiff received proper treatment based on the information available to the providers at the time.

VERDICT

The jury found for the plaintiff and apportioned 65% liability to the physician and 35% liability to the PA. A total of $25,342,096 was awarded to the plaintiff.

COMMENTARY

This is a huge verdict. Cases involving group A strep or necrotizing fasciitis frequently give rise to large medical malpractice verdicts, because everything about them is difficult to defend: Although there is typically trivial to no trauma involved, the wounds from these infections provide explicit images of damage, intra­operatively and postoperatively. Vasopressors required for hemodynamic support or sepsis itself frequently result in limb ischemia, gangrene, and amputation. In this case, the plaintiff, as a quadruple amputee, was a sympathetic and impressive courtroom presence—the personal toll was evident to anyone in the room.

Two providers—a PA and a physician—saw the patient. We are told only that she complained of severe abdominal pain, rapid heartbeat, and fever, which increased at some point during her ED stay. We aren’t given specifics on the rest of the patient’s vital signs or examination details. However, we can infer that the exam and lab findings were not impressive, because they weren’t mentioned in the case report. But as a result of the failure to catch the group A strep infection, the plaintiff suffered what one judge hearing the case described as a harrowing and unimaginable ordeal: the life-changing amputation of 4 limbs.¹ While the jury did not find the PA or physician negligent, they still found the clinicians liable and awarded a staggering verdict.

Continue to: How could this happen?

How could this happen? The answer is the theory of recovery: The jury found that the physician and the PA failed to provide the patient with informed consent in the form of “alternative medical diagnoses.”² The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the patient was never told a life-threatening bacterial infection was one possible diagnosis and claimed that if she had known, the patient would have pursued other treatment.

As in many malpractice cases, the plaintiff alleged failure to diagnose and failure to provide informed consent. Depending on state law, there are 3 standards for informed consent: subjective patient, reasonable patient, and reasonable physician.³ About half of the states have a physician-focused standard, while the other half have a patient-focused standard.³

Under the subjective patient standard, we would ask, “What would this patient need to know and understand to make an informed decision?”⁴ The subjective standard requires the clinician to essentially “get in the head” of a specific patient to determine what he or she would want to know when making a medical decision. This standard is problematic because it requires the clinician to have an intimate familiarity with the patient’s belief system and medical decision-making process—a daunting requirement for many clinicians, particularly in the absence of a longstanding clinician-patient relationship, as is the case in most emergency settings. Thankfully, the subjective patient standard is not followed by most states that have a patient-focused standard.

Under the objective reasonable patient standard, we would ask “What would the average patient need to know to be an informed participant in the decision?”⁴ One could argue that this standard more adequately allows the patient to be an active participant in shared decision-making. However, the drawback is that what is “reasonable” often falls on a spectrum, which would require the clinician to gauge the volume and type of information a patient cohort would want to have when making a medical decision. Under this standard, the plaintiff must prove that the clinician omitted information that a reasonable patient would want to know. Therefore, these standards are more friendly to the plaintiff, whereas the reasonable physician standard is more defendant friendly.

To meet the standard of care under a reasonable physician standard, information must be provided to the patient that a “reasonably prudent practitioner in the same field of practice or specialty” would provide to a patient.⁵ For a plaintiff to successfully sue under this standard, the plaintiff’s expert must testify that a reasonably prudent physician would have disclosed the omitted information.⁶ The reasonable physician standard is obviously better for malpractice defendants.

Continue to: While reasonable clinicians...

While reasonable clinicians can disagree (as can reasonable patients), clinicians are more likely to be closer in opinion. Clinicians are a smaller group whose opinions are underpinned by similar education, training, and experience. By contrast, among the general population, beliefs held by one hypothetical “reasonable person” are much less settled, and in some cases, wildly divergent from another’s. For example, vaccine skepticism would probably be considered unreasonable in the majority of jury pools but absolutely reasonable in some. The large size of the general population, coupled with opinions untethered to any definable discipline, make the reasonable patient standard hard to predict.

Additionally, the reasonable physician standard forces the plaintiff to prove his or her case by producing an expert witness (clinician) to specifically testify that the standard of care required the defendant clinician to disclose certain specific information, and that disclosure was lacking. That is an important requirement. Under patient-focused standards, the plaintiff doesn’t need a medical expert on this point and can simply argue to the jury that a reasonable patient would require an exhaustive discussion of each possibility in the differential diagnosis. Therefore, I would argue that the reasonable physician standard is more predictable and workable and should be followed.

At the time of this case, Wisconsin’s informed consent law was based on the reasonable patient standard. As a result of this case, Wisconsin lawmakers changed the law to a “reasonable physician standard,” which states “any physician who treats a patient shall inform the patient about the availability of reasonable alternate medical modes of treatment and about the benefits and risks of these treatments.”⁷ However, the law stipulates that this duty to inform does not require disclosure of (among others):

• Detailed technical information that in all probability a patient would not understand
• Risks apparent or known to the patient
• Extremely remote possibilities that might falsely or detrimentally alarm the patient
• Information about alternate medical modes of treatment for any condition the physician has not included in his or her diagnosis at the time the physician informs the patient.⁷

Finally, this case involved an extremely high verdict of more than $25 million. It may surprise you to learn that many states have caps for medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering. If you’re having a holiday dinner with friends or family members who are plaintiff’s attorneys and you’re itching for a good argument, skip current politics and go all-in: How about liability caps, Uncle Jim? Get ready for a lively debate.

Of the $25 million verdict, $16.5 million was awarded for pain and suffering—the jury was obviously shocked by the extent of the life-changing nature of the plaintiff’s injuries. At the time of this case, Wisconsin had a cap of $750,000 for noneconomic damages.⁸ However, plaintiffs may challenge state constitutionality of these caps when they feel they have the right case, which the plaintiff and her attorney felt they did. Two lower courts found the state cap unconstitutional and gave the plaintiff the full award. But the state Supreme Court later reversed that decision, upholding the cap.¹ The court decided that the legislature had a rational basis for making the law and changes to it should occur through the legislature, not the courts. The dissenting justices argued that there was no rational basis for the $750,000 cap, because there was no evidence that clinicians would flee the state fearing malpractice liability, or practice more defensive medicine, or suffer runaway malpractice insurance premiums without the cap. As a result of this case, the cap was upheld, and there was a “lively debate” on this issue at the highest levels of government.

Continue to: IN SUM

 

 

IN SUM

Become familiar with your state’s informed consent laws. Involve patients in decision-making, and convey information related to reasonable treatment options and risks. Document all of these discussions. Lastly, state-level political discussions on issues of tort reform, caps, and malpractice matters are ongoing—so take notice.

On May 24, 2011, a 53-year-old woman presented to a Wisconsin hospital emergency ­department (ED) with complaints of severe abdominal pain, a rapid heartbeat, and a fever of 101.3°F. During her 9-hour visit, she was treated by a PA and his supervising physician. She was seen by the physician for a total of 6 minutes; the rest of her care was provided by the PA. The patient was discharged around midnight with instructions to contact her gynecologist in the morning for management of uterine fibroids. At the time of discharge, her temperature was 102.9°F.

The following day, May 25, the patient collapsed in her home and was transported to another hospital. She was treated for septic shock from a group A streptococcus infection. Although the infection was halted, the patient sustained ischemic damage to her extremities and a month later required amputation of her 4 limbs.The plaintiff claimed that the supervising physician was negligent in failing to diagnose the strep A infection, which, left undetected, led to septic shock. She also alleged that the PA should have recognized the potential for her condition’s severity to quickly escalate. She maintained that the supervising physician should have been more involved in her case because of its complexity.

Plaintiff’s counsel also argued that the PA should have provided “alternative medical diagnoses,” which would have prompted consideration of other treatment options. The plaintiff contended that under Wisconsin’s informed consent law, both the PA and the physician failed to disclose enough information about her condition and failed to inform her of any choices for treatment.

The defense argued that the plaintiff received proper treatment based on the information available to the providers at the time.

VERDICT

The jury found for the plaintiff and apportioned 65% liability to the physician and 35% liability to the PA. A total of $25,342,096 was awarded to the plaintiff.

COMMENTARY

This is a huge verdict. Cases involving group A strep or necrotizing fasciitis frequently give rise to large medical malpractice verdicts, because everything about them is difficult to defend: Although there is typically trivial to no trauma involved, the wounds from these infections provide explicit images of damage, intra­operatively and postoperatively. Vasopressors required for hemodynamic support or sepsis itself frequently result in limb ischemia, gangrene, and amputation. In this case, the plaintiff, as a quadruple amputee, was a sympathetic and impressive courtroom presence—the personal toll was evident to anyone in the room.

Two providers—a PA and a physician—saw the patient. We are told only that she complained of severe abdominal pain, rapid heartbeat, and fever, which increased at some point during her ED stay. We aren’t given specifics on the rest of the patient’s vital signs or examination details. However, we can infer that the exam and lab findings were not impressive, because they weren’t mentioned in the case report. But as a result of the failure to catch the group A strep infection, the plaintiff suffered what one judge hearing the case described as a harrowing and unimaginable ordeal: the life-changing amputation of 4 limbs.¹ While the jury did not find the PA or physician negligent, they still found the clinicians liable and awarded a staggering verdict.

Continue to: How could this happen?

How could this happen? The answer is the theory of recovery: The jury found that the physician and the PA failed to provide the patient with informed consent in the form of “alternative medical diagnoses.”² The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the patient was never told a life-threatening bacterial infection was one possible diagnosis and claimed that if she had known, the patient would have pursued other treatment.

As in many malpractice cases, the plaintiff alleged failure to diagnose and failure to provide informed consent. Depending on state law, there are 3 standards for informed consent: subjective patient, reasonable patient, and reasonable physician.³ About half of the states have a physician-focused standard, while the other half have a patient-focused standard.³

Under the subjective patient standard, we would ask, “What would this patient need to know and understand to make an informed decision?”⁴ The subjective standard requires the clinician to essentially “get in the head” of a specific patient to determine what he or she would want to know when making a medical decision. This standard is problematic because it requires the clinician to have an intimate familiarity with the patient’s belief system and medical decision-making process—a daunting requirement for many clinicians, particularly in the absence of a longstanding clinician-patient relationship, as is the case in most emergency settings. Thankfully, the subjective patient standard is not followed by most states that have a patient-focused standard.

Under the objective reasonable patient standard, we would ask “What would the average patient need to know to be an informed participant in the decision?”⁴ One could argue that this standard more adequately allows the patient to be an active participant in shared decision-making. However, the drawback is that what is “reasonable” often falls on a spectrum, which would require the clinician to gauge the volume and type of information a patient cohort would want to have when making a medical decision. Under this standard, the plaintiff must prove that the clinician omitted information that a reasonable patient would want to know. Therefore, these standards are more friendly to the plaintiff, whereas the reasonable physician standard is more defendant friendly.

To meet the standard of care under a reasonable physician standard, information must be provided to the patient that a “reasonably prudent practitioner in the same field of practice or specialty” would provide to a patient.⁵ For a plaintiff to successfully sue under this standard, the plaintiff’s expert must testify that a reasonably prudent physician would have disclosed the omitted information.⁶ The reasonable physician standard is obviously better for malpractice defendants.

Continue to: While reasonable clinicians...

While reasonable clinicians can disagree (as can reasonable patients), clinicians are more likely to be closer in opinion. Clinicians are a smaller group whose opinions are underpinned by similar education, training, and experience. By contrast, among the general population, beliefs held by one hypothetical “reasonable person” are much less settled, and in some cases, wildly divergent from another’s. For example, vaccine skepticism would probably be considered unreasonable in the majority of jury pools but absolutely reasonable in some. The large size of the general population, coupled with opinions untethered to any definable discipline, make the reasonable patient standard hard to predict.

Additionally, the reasonable physician standard forces the plaintiff to prove his or her case by producing an expert witness (clinician) to specifically testify that the standard of care required the defendant clinician to disclose certain specific information, and that disclosure was lacking. That is an important requirement. Under patient-focused standards, the plaintiff doesn’t need a medical expert on this point and can simply argue to the jury that a reasonable patient would require an exhaustive discussion of each possibility in the differential diagnosis. Therefore, I would argue that the reasonable physician standard is more predictable and workable and should be followed.

At the time of this case, Wisconsin’s informed consent law was based on the reasonable patient standard. As a result of this case, Wisconsin lawmakers changed the law to a “reasonable physician standard,” which states “any physician who treats a patient shall inform the patient about the availability of reasonable alternate medical modes of treatment and about the benefits and risks of these treatments.”⁷ However, the law stipulates that this duty to inform does not require disclosure of (among others):

• Detailed technical information that in all probability a patient would not understand
• Risks apparent or known to the patient
• Extremely remote possibilities that might falsely or detrimentally alarm the patient
• Information about alternate medical modes of treatment for any condition the physician has not included in his or her diagnosis at the time the physician informs the patient.⁷

Finally, this case involved an extremely high verdict of more than $25 million. It may surprise you to learn that many states have caps for medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering. If you’re having a holiday dinner with friends or family members who are plaintiff’s attorneys and you’re itching for a good argument, skip current politics and go all-in: How about liability caps, Uncle Jim? Get ready for a lively debate.

Of the $25 million verdict, $16.5 million was awarded for pain and suffering—the jury was obviously shocked by the extent of the life-changing nature of the plaintiff’s injuries. At the time of this case, Wisconsin had a cap of $750,000 for noneconomic damages.⁸ However, plaintiffs may challenge state constitutionality of these caps when they feel they have the right case, which the plaintiff and her attorney felt they did. Two lower courts found the state cap unconstitutional and gave the plaintiff the full award. But the state Supreme Court later reversed that decision, upholding the cap.¹ The court decided that the legislature had a rational basis for making the law and changes to it should occur through the legislature, not the courts. The dissenting justices argued that there was no rational basis for the $750,000 cap, because there was no evidence that clinicians would flee the state fearing malpractice liability, or practice more defensive medicine, or suffer runaway malpractice insurance premiums without the cap. As a result of this case, the cap was upheld, and there was a “lively debate” on this issue at the highest levels of government.

Continue to: IN SUM

 

 

IN SUM

Become familiar with your state’s informed consent laws. Involve patients in decision-making, and convey information related to reasonable treatment options and risks. Document all of these discussions. Lastly, state-level political discussions on issues of tort reform, caps, and malpractice matters are ongoing—so take notice.

Cannabidiol is a derivative of marijuana that is sold everywhere from medical marijuana stores to health food markets to gas stations. While this chemical is derived from marijuana plants, it can be sold in many states as a supplement and is largely unregulated. The ubiquity of cannabidiol (CBD) and its potential benefits means that doctors need to be able to counsel patients about what we know, what we don’t, and how to use it safely. For conditions such as chronic pain and addiction, where we have few safe and effective alternatives, CBD may be reasonable to recommend.

To find out what physicians need to know about CBD, Elisabeth Poorman, MD, a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent and member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, interviewed Peter Grinspoon, MD, who provides free consultation to primary care patients on the benefits and risks of using various forms of cannabis, including CBD. Dr. Grinspoon is an internist at Massachusetts General Hospital Chelsea Healthcare Center and is an instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. He has contributed to the Harvard Health Blog on the topic of medical marijuana, delivered grand rounds on cannabis at Massachusetts General Hospital, and lectured at the American College of Physicians. Dr. Grinspoon is also medical director for Galenas, a medical marijuana company.

Dr. Grinspoon is the son of Lester Grinspoon, MD, associate professor emeritus of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who researched the medicinal legitimacy of marijuana prohibition and has authored books on the medical benefits of marijuana.

Dr. Poorman queried Dr. Peter Grinspoon about his experiences treating patients with CBD and his knowledge of CBD’s efficacy for various medical conditions. Below are excerpts from that conversation.


Dr. Poorman: How do you explain the difference between THC and CBD to patients?

Dr. Grinspoon: Cannabis contains at least a hundred different chemicals called cannabinoids, of which tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and CBD are the most prevalent. THC is the one that gets you high and can be used recreationally and medically. The CBD molecule is not intoxicating, and people use it for a variety of medical purposes, most commonly to treat anxiety, insomnia, and pain.

Dr. Poorman: There are a lot of gaps in what we now about CBD’s potential benefits. Why don’t we know more?

Dr. Grinspoon: CBD has no abuse liability according to the World Health Organization, but because it is a cannabinoid, it is still technically a schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, and that makes it difficult to study.


Dr. Poorman: What kinds of conditions can CBD treat?

Dr. Grinspoon: In anxiety, the enthusiasm has outpaced the science; there’s no question about that. And most of the studies have done in animals. That said, some studies have shown that CBD helps treat components of anxiety, like public speaking. Unlike THC, it is nonintoxicating and non–habit forming. But we don’t have the wealth of randomized controlled trials that we have for official psychiatric medications.

CBD’s benefits have been most extensively studied in pediatric epilepsy. The one Food and Drug Administration–approved drug derived from cannabis is Epidiolex, used to treat rare forms of childhood epilepsy. There is some evidence that as an adjunct, it can be used for glioblastoma multiforme in patients receiving other appropriate therapy. There is also some preliminary evidence that it can be used for addiction, including to opioids, cannabis, tobacco, and stimulants.

Most of the evidence for using CBD in chronic pain comes from animal studies, including a study published in the European Journal of Pain in 2016. Among my patients to whom I have suggested CBD for chronic pain, a few have noticed great benefit, a few have noticed some benefit, and a lot have noticed no benefit. For those who have said they noticed benefit it is unclear whether that benefit was just the placebo effect.

In insomnia, I usually have them take CBD under the tongue half an hour time before bedtime, or if it’s an edible, an hour before bedtime. I start with a lower dose and slowly try higher doses. I also encourage them to do the other sleep hygiene things, like no screens, increasing exercise, and decreasing caffeine. It seems that CBD helps them fall asleep, though it’s hard to know if it’s the CBD or the fact that they have started taking something, and have simultaneously made various lifestyle changes.


Dr. Poorman: Can CBD interfere with your normal sleep architecture, the way benzodiazepines and Benadryl can?

Dr. Grinspoon: We know that THC affects your sleep architecture and affects what percentage of REM sleep you have. But I don’t know if the effects of CBD on sleep architecture have been studied.


Dr. Poorman: What harms do you counsel patients about when discussing CBD?

Dr. Grinspoon: There are four main harms. The first is the price. It’s overpriced, and the doses are very low. In most animal studies, the doses are about 20 milligrams per kilogram of weight. And you go to the market, and it’s like a dollar for a hundredth of that.

Number two is that it’s not regulated; it’s a supplement. A few years ago, the government tested a bunch of samples of CBD, and some didn’t actually contain CBD, some didn’t have the right amount; and worse, some contained THC that had not been disclosed in the packaging. So you can’t just go to a roadside gas station and assume that if you buy CBD, it’s actually that. You want a place that has a certificate of assurance. Make sure third-party testing was done, including testing for pesticides and other heavy metals.

The third thing is drug interactions. It affects the body like grapefruit and inhibits the cytochrome P450 system. The medications doctors should be most concerned about are blood thinners like Coumadin. And if you’re on blood thinners, you definitely want to tell your doctor that you are on CBD and he or she might want to check your blood levels more frequently than they usually do.

The fourth concern is liver inflammation. In the childhood epilepsy studies, a bump in some liver enzymes was seen, although I haven’t heard of any clinically significant cases of chemical hepatitis related to CBD. But if someone has liver disease you want to keep an eye on their liver enzymes.

Dr. Poorman: What methods of ingestion do you recommend or not recommend?

Dr. Grinspoon: It’s basically trial and error, but I usually recommend oral form. If people feel comfortable taking a gummy bear, or a pill, I’m not particular about that. If the product being taken contains less than 0.3% THC, it won’t get you high.

The topical form probably works better for treating chronic pain if it contains some THC, suggests a review article published in the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. Topical THC is nonintoxicating, unless you managed to sit in a bathtub for 8 hours after applying it.

I don’t recommend smoking CBD, and right now, I don’t recommend vaping anything.

If people have severe pain, like moderately severe arthritis, CBD may not be enough, whereas medical cannabis with THC could help, a report suggests.


Dr. Poorman: Do you ever encourage patients to stop using CBD products?

Dr. Grinspoon: I work in a low-income area, and my patients don’t have a ton of disposable income. If it’s not working, I worry about the expense.


Dr. Poorman: The CBD industry is growing quickly. What changes are you seeing in what products are out there, and what changes would you like to see?

Dr. Grinspoon: CBD is being put in everything, and it’s comical. On the one hand, you can say if people want to waste their money on a CBD emitting pillowcase, that’s fine. On the other hand, you can say that certainly seems like misleading advertising, because a CBD emitting pillowcase isn’t going to help you sleep any better.

I think the purported benefits are far beyond what we can say scientifically. We do know that CBD has anti-inflammatory characteristics. But that doesn’t mean that putting CBD in all skin products is good for your skin. It’s bad for your pocketbook, though. I would like there to be less of a gap between the claims and the science.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman has no conflicts to disclose.

Cannabidiol is a derivative of marijuana that is sold everywhere from medical marijuana stores to health food markets to gas stations. While this chemical is derived from marijuana plants, it can be sold in many states as a supplement and is largely unregulated. The ubiquity of cannabidiol (CBD) and its potential benefits means that doctors need to be able to counsel patients about what we know, what we don’t, and how to use it safely. For conditions such as chronic pain and addiction, where we have few safe and effective alternatives, CBD may be reasonable to recommend.

To find out what physicians need to know about CBD, Elisabeth Poorman, MD, a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent and member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, interviewed Peter Grinspoon, MD, who provides free consultation to primary care patients on the benefits and risks of using various forms of cannabis, including CBD. Dr. Grinspoon is an internist at Massachusetts General Hospital Chelsea Healthcare Center and is an instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. He has contributed to the Harvard Health Blog on the topic of medical marijuana, delivered grand rounds on cannabis at Massachusetts General Hospital, and lectured at the American College of Physicians. Dr. Grinspoon is also medical director for Galenas, a medical marijuana company.

Dr. Grinspoon is the son of Lester Grinspoon, MD, associate professor emeritus of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who researched the medicinal legitimacy of marijuana prohibition and has authored books on the medical benefits of marijuana.

Dr. Poorman queried Dr. Peter Grinspoon about his experiences treating patients with CBD and his knowledge of CBD’s efficacy for various medical conditions. Below are excerpts from that conversation.


Dr. Poorman: How do you explain the difference between THC and CBD to patients?

Dr. Grinspoon: Cannabis contains at least a hundred different chemicals called cannabinoids, of which tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and CBD are the most prevalent. THC is the one that gets you high and can be used recreationally and medically. The CBD molecule is not intoxicating, and people use it for a variety of medical purposes, most commonly to treat anxiety, insomnia, and pain.

Dr. Poorman: There are a lot of gaps in what we now about CBD’s potential benefits. Why don’t we know more?

Dr. Grinspoon: CBD has no abuse liability according to the World Health Organization, but because it is a cannabinoid, it is still technically a schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, and that makes it difficult to study.


Dr. Poorman: What kinds of conditions can CBD treat?

Dr. Grinspoon: In anxiety, the enthusiasm has outpaced the science; there’s no question about that. And most of the studies have done in animals. That said, some studies have shown that CBD helps treat components of anxiety, like public speaking. Unlike THC, it is nonintoxicating and non–habit forming. But we don’t have the wealth of randomized controlled trials that we have for official psychiatric medications.

CBD’s benefits have been most extensively studied in pediatric epilepsy. The one Food and Drug Administration–approved drug derived from cannabis is Epidiolex, used to treat rare forms of childhood epilepsy. There is some evidence that as an adjunct, it can be used for glioblastoma multiforme in patients receiving other appropriate therapy. There is also some preliminary evidence that it can be used for addiction, including to opioids, cannabis, tobacco, and stimulants.

Most of the evidence for using CBD in chronic pain comes from animal studies, including a study published in the European Journal of Pain in 2016. Among my patients to whom I have suggested CBD for chronic pain, a few have noticed great benefit, a few have noticed some benefit, and a lot have noticed no benefit. For those who have said they noticed benefit it is unclear whether that benefit was just the placebo effect.

In insomnia, I usually have them take CBD under the tongue half an hour time before bedtime, or if it’s an edible, an hour before bedtime. I start with a lower dose and slowly try higher doses. I also encourage them to do the other sleep hygiene things, like no screens, increasing exercise, and decreasing caffeine. It seems that CBD helps them fall asleep, though it’s hard to know if it’s the CBD or the fact that they have started taking something, and have simultaneously made various lifestyle changes.


Dr. Poorman: Can CBD interfere with your normal sleep architecture, the way benzodiazepines and Benadryl can?

Dr. Grinspoon: We know that THC affects your sleep architecture and affects what percentage of REM sleep you have. But I don’t know if the effects of CBD on sleep architecture have been studied.


Dr. Poorman: What harms do you counsel patients about when discussing CBD?

Dr. Grinspoon: There are four main harms. The first is the price. It’s overpriced, and the doses are very low. In most animal studies, the doses are about 20 milligrams per kilogram of weight. And you go to the market, and it’s like a dollar for a hundredth of that.

Number two is that it’s not regulated; it’s a supplement. A few years ago, the government tested a bunch of samples of CBD, and some didn’t actually contain CBD, some didn’t have the right amount; and worse, some contained THC that had not been disclosed in the packaging. So you can’t just go to a roadside gas station and assume that if you buy CBD, it’s actually that. You want a place that has a certificate of assurance. Make sure third-party testing was done, including testing for pesticides and other heavy metals.

The third thing is drug interactions. It affects the body like grapefruit and inhibits the cytochrome P450 system. The medications doctors should be most concerned about are blood thinners like Coumadin. And if you’re on blood thinners, you definitely want to tell your doctor that you are on CBD and he or she might want to check your blood levels more frequently than they usually do.

The fourth concern is liver inflammation. In the childhood epilepsy studies, a bump in some liver enzymes was seen, although I haven’t heard of any clinically significant cases of chemical hepatitis related to CBD. But if someone has liver disease you want to keep an eye on their liver enzymes.

Dr. Poorman: What methods of ingestion do you recommend or not recommend?

Dr. Grinspoon: It’s basically trial and error, but I usually recommend oral form. If people feel comfortable taking a gummy bear, or a pill, I’m not particular about that. If the product being taken contains less than 0.3% THC, it won’t get you high.

The topical form probably works better for treating chronic pain if it contains some THC, suggests a review article published in the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. Topical THC is nonintoxicating, unless you managed to sit in a bathtub for 8 hours after applying it.

I don’t recommend smoking CBD, and right now, I don’t recommend vaping anything.

If people have severe pain, like moderately severe arthritis, CBD may not be enough, whereas medical cannabis with THC could help, a report suggests.


Dr. Poorman: Do you ever encourage patients to stop using CBD products?

Dr. Grinspoon: I work in a low-income area, and my patients don’t have a ton of disposable income. If it’s not working, I worry about the expense.


Dr. Poorman: The CBD industry is growing quickly. What changes are you seeing in what products are out there, and what changes would you like to see?

Dr. Grinspoon: CBD is being put in everything, and it’s comical. On the one hand, you can say if people want to waste their money on a CBD emitting pillowcase, that’s fine. On the other hand, you can say that certainly seems like misleading advertising, because a CBD emitting pillowcase isn’t going to help you sleep any better.

I think the purported benefits are far beyond what we can say scientifically. We do know that CBD has anti-inflammatory characteristics. But that doesn’t mean that putting CBD in all skin products is good for your skin. It’s bad for your pocketbook, though. I would like there to be less of a gap between the claims and the science.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman has no conflicts to disclose.

Cannabidiol is a derivative of marijuana that is sold everywhere from medical marijuana stores to health food markets to gas stations. While this chemical is derived from marijuana plants, it can be sold in many states as a supplement and is largely unregulated. The ubiquity of cannabidiol (CBD) and its potential benefits means that doctors need to be able to counsel patients about what we know, what we don’t, and how to use it safely. For conditions such as chronic pain and addiction, where we have few safe and effective alternatives, CBD may be reasonable to recommend.

To find out what physicians need to know about CBD, Elisabeth Poorman, MD, a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent and member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, interviewed Peter Grinspoon, MD, who provides free consultation to primary care patients on the benefits and risks of using various forms of cannabis, including CBD. Dr. Grinspoon is an internist at Massachusetts General Hospital Chelsea Healthcare Center and is an instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. He has contributed to the Harvard Health Blog on the topic of medical marijuana, delivered grand rounds on cannabis at Massachusetts General Hospital, and lectured at the American College of Physicians. Dr. Grinspoon is also medical director for Galenas, a medical marijuana company.

Dr. Grinspoon is the son of Lester Grinspoon, MD, associate professor emeritus of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who researched the medicinal legitimacy of marijuana prohibition and has authored books on the medical benefits of marijuana.

Dr. Poorman queried Dr. Peter Grinspoon about his experiences treating patients with CBD and his knowledge of CBD’s efficacy for various medical conditions. Below are excerpts from that conversation.


Dr. Poorman: How do you explain the difference between THC and CBD to patients?

Dr. Grinspoon: Cannabis contains at least a hundred different chemicals called cannabinoids, of which tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and CBD are the most prevalent. THC is the one that gets you high and can be used recreationally and medically. The CBD molecule is not intoxicating, and people use it for a variety of medical purposes, most commonly to treat anxiety, insomnia, and pain.

Dr. Poorman: There are a lot of gaps in what we now about CBD’s potential benefits. Why don’t we know more?

Dr. Grinspoon: CBD has no abuse liability according to the World Health Organization, but because it is a cannabinoid, it is still technically a schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, and that makes it difficult to study.


Dr. Poorman: What kinds of conditions can CBD treat?

Dr. Grinspoon: In anxiety, the enthusiasm has outpaced the science; there’s no question about that. And most of the studies have done in animals. That said, some studies have shown that CBD helps treat components of anxiety, like public speaking. Unlike THC, it is nonintoxicating and non–habit forming. But we don’t have the wealth of randomized controlled trials that we have for official psychiatric medications.

CBD’s benefits have been most extensively studied in pediatric epilepsy. The one Food and Drug Administration–approved drug derived from cannabis is Epidiolex, used to treat rare forms of childhood epilepsy. There is some evidence that as an adjunct, it can be used for glioblastoma multiforme in patients receiving other appropriate therapy. There is also some preliminary evidence that it can be used for addiction, including to opioids, cannabis, tobacco, and stimulants.

Most of the evidence for using CBD in chronic pain comes from animal studies, including a study published in the European Journal of Pain in 2016. Among my patients to whom I have suggested CBD for chronic pain, a few have noticed great benefit, a few have noticed some benefit, and a lot have noticed no benefit. For those who have said they noticed benefit it is unclear whether that benefit was just the placebo effect.

In insomnia, I usually have them take CBD under the tongue half an hour time before bedtime, or if it’s an edible, an hour before bedtime. I start with a lower dose and slowly try higher doses. I also encourage them to do the other sleep hygiene things, like no screens, increasing exercise, and decreasing caffeine. It seems that CBD helps them fall asleep, though it’s hard to know if it’s the CBD or the fact that they have started taking something, and have simultaneously made various lifestyle changes.


Dr. Poorman: Can CBD interfere with your normal sleep architecture, the way benzodiazepines and Benadryl can?

Dr. Grinspoon: We know that THC affects your sleep architecture and affects what percentage of REM sleep you have. But I don’t know if the effects of CBD on sleep architecture have been studied.


Dr. Poorman: What harms do you counsel patients about when discussing CBD?

Dr. Grinspoon: There are four main harms. The first is the price. It’s overpriced, and the doses are very low. In most animal studies, the doses are about 20 milligrams per kilogram of weight. And you go to the market, and it’s like a dollar for a hundredth of that.

Number two is that it’s not regulated; it’s a supplement. A few years ago, the government tested a bunch of samples of CBD, and some didn’t actually contain CBD, some didn’t have the right amount; and worse, some contained THC that had not been disclosed in the packaging. So you can’t just go to a roadside gas station and assume that if you buy CBD, it’s actually that. You want a place that has a certificate of assurance. Make sure third-party testing was done, including testing for pesticides and other heavy metals.

The third thing is drug interactions. It affects the body like grapefruit and inhibits the cytochrome P450 system. The medications doctors should be most concerned about are blood thinners like Coumadin. And if you’re on blood thinners, you definitely want to tell your doctor that you are on CBD and he or she might want to check your blood levels more frequently than they usually do.

The fourth concern is liver inflammation. In the childhood epilepsy studies, a bump in some liver enzymes was seen, although I haven’t heard of any clinically significant cases of chemical hepatitis related to CBD. But if someone has liver disease you want to keep an eye on their liver enzymes.

Dr. Poorman: What methods of ingestion do you recommend or not recommend?

Dr. Grinspoon: It’s basically trial and error, but I usually recommend oral form. If people feel comfortable taking a gummy bear, or a pill, I’m not particular about that. If the product being taken contains less than 0.3% THC, it won’t get you high.

The topical form probably works better for treating chronic pain if it contains some THC, suggests a review article published in the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. Topical THC is nonintoxicating, unless you managed to sit in a bathtub for 8 hours after applying it.

I don’t recommend smoking CBD, and right now, I don’t recommend vaping anything.

If people have severe pain, like moderately severe arthritis, CBD may not be enough, whereas medical cannabis with THC could help, a report suggests.


Dr. Poorman: Do you ever encourage patients to stop using CBD products?

Dr. Grinspoon: I work in a low-income area, and my patients don’t have a ton of disposable income. If it’s not working, I worry about the expense.


Dr. Poorman: The CBD industry is growing quickly. What changes are you seeing in what products are out there, and what changes would you like to see?

Dr. Grinspoon: CBD is being put in everything, and it’s comical. On the one hand, you can say if people want to waste their money on a CBD emitting pillowcase, that’s fine. On the other hand, you can say that certainly seems like misleading advertising, because a CBD emitting pillowcase isn’t going to help you sleep any better.

I think the purported benefits are far beyond what we can say scientifically. We do know that CBD has anti-inflammatory characteristics. But that doesn’t mean that putting CBD in all skin products is good for your skin. It’s bad for your pocketbook, though. I would like there to be less of a gap between the claims and the science.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman has no conflicts to disclose.

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

sdominick/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sdominick/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sdominick/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategies aimed at reducing drug-related harm should be informed by evidence, and recognize the contribution of social and economic factors to drug use, report the authors of a series of four papers published in The Lancet.

Louisa Degenhardt, PhD, and coauthors wrote in the first paper that, although the availability and use of drugs have been transformed over recent decades – including the emergence of hundreds of new psychoactive substances – professional and public policy has not yet adapted to those new realities (Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32229-9).

“In many instances we have, in many countries, and in many debates, the things that are implemented are not evidence-based, and the discussion around illicit drugs is often in an incredibly emotive and morally laden one, in a way that you don’t see in other areas of public health,” Dr. Degenhardt, of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, said in an interview. “There has been an increasing level of awareness of issues but also level of recognition that we need to have hard evidence to work out the best ways to respond.”

The paper by Dr. Degenhardt and coauthors addressed the issue of opioid use and dependence around the world, citing evidence that in 2017, 40.5 million people were dependent on opioids and 109,500 deaths were attributable to opioid overdose. An effective treatment exists in the form of opioid agonists methadone and buprenorphine, both of which are recognized as World Health Organization essential medicines.

While the best evidence for positive outcomes from opioid agonist treatment is in people using illicit opioids such as heroin, there is also evidence for their effectiveness in people with pharmaceutical opioid dependence. A study in Kentucky suggested that scaling up the use and retention of opioid agonist treatment, including in prison, could prevent 57% of overdose deaths among injecting drug users.

“Despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of a range of interventions to improve the health and well-being of people who are dependent on opioids, coverage is low, even in high-income countries,” the authors wrote. They also called for international efforts to eliminate marketing strategies that have contributed to the increase in opioid prescription and harms in North America.

The second paper examined the public health implications of legalizing cannabis for medicinal and recreational use (Hall W et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31789-1). Cannabis has been considered an illicit drug for more than 50 years but recently has been decriminalized or legalized in many parts of the world in recognition of the lower levels of harm, compared with other illicit substances.

Cannabis is used to treat a range of medical conditions, including muscle spasticity in multiple sclerosis. It also is used to treat pain, nausea, and vomiting in palliative care, and to reduce seizures in epilepsy. However, the authors noted that the evidence for many medical applications was absent, and that weakly regulated medical cannabis programs in some U.S. states were blurring the boundaries between medicinal and nonmedicinal use.

They also wrote that the public health effects of legalization could not be assessed, because legalization had happened only in the last 5 years.

“A major determinant of the public health effect of cannabis legalization will be the effect that it has on alcohol use,” they wrote. “The substitution of cannabis for alcohol would produce substantial public health gains, but any increase in the combined use of alcohol and cannabis could increase harm.”

The authors also looked at the effect of use of stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines. While their use is associated with higher mortality, increased incidence of HIV and hepatitis C infection, poor mental health, and increased risk of cardiovascular events, no effective pharmacotherapies are available, and psychosocial interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy have only a weak effect.

“Many governments rely on punitive responses, such as involuntary detention in drug centers, despite the absence of evidence for their effectiveness and their potential to increase harm,” the authors wrote. “Substantial research investment is needed to develop more effective, innovative, and impactful prevention and treatment” (Farrell M et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32230-5).

They focused on interventions to prevent the transmission of blood-borne and sexually transmitted infections – such as the provision of safe injecting equipment, condoms or pre-exposure prophylaxis against HIV – and improve treatment of these, and interventions to prevent and treat overdose, injury, and other harms.

The final paper in the series explored new psychoactive substances, such as synthetic cannabinoids, stimulants, hallucinogens, and dissociative and depressant substances (Peacock A et al. Lancet 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32231-7).

There really needs to be massive change in systems in terms of the way monitoring occurs and the speed with which new drugs are identified, Dr. Degenhardt said in the interview. She also said the risks that are identified need to be communicated more effectively.

“At the moment, the way that drug surveillance works in most countries, things come and then particular drugs may spread in use, cause massive harm, and all of our systems of detecting and responding are not fit to detect those things in a timely way and disseminate information to reduce those risks.”

The papers were supported by European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction, and the Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. The authors declared support from a range of institutions and funding bodies, and several also declared unrelated grants, funding, and other support from the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCES: Degenhardt L et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32229-9; Hall W et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31789-1; Farrell M et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32230-5; and Peacock A et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32231-7.

Strategies aimed at reducing drug-related harm should be informed by evidence, and recognize the contribution of social and economic factors to drug use, report the authors of a series of four papers published in The Lancet.

Louisa Degenhardt, PhD, and coauthors wrote in the first paper that, although the availability and use of drugs have been transformed over recent decades – including the emergence of hundreds of new psychoactive substances – professional and public policy has not yet adapted to those new realities (Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32229-9).

“In many instances we have, in many countries, and in many debates, the things that are implemented are not evidence-based, and the discussion around illicit drugs is often in an incredibly emotive and morally laden one, in a way that you don’t see in other areas of public health,” Dr. Degenhardt, of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, said in an interview. “There has been an increasing level of awareness of issues but also level of recognition that we need to have hard evidence to work out the best ways to respond.”

The paper by Dr. Degenhardt and coauthors addressed the issue of opioid use and dependence around the world, citing evidence that in 2017, 40.5 million people were dependent on opioids and 109,500 deaths were attributable to opioid overdose. An effective treatment exists in the form of opioid agonists methadone and buprenorphine, both of which are recognized as World Health Organization essential medicines.

While the best evidence for positive outcomes from opioid agonist treatment is in people using illicit opioids such as heroin, there is also evidence for their effectiveness in people with pharmaceutical opioid dependence. A study in Kentucky suggested that scaling up the use and retention of opioid agonist treatment, including in prison, could prevent 57% of overdose deaths among injecting drug users.

“Despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of a range of interventions to improve the health and well-being of people who are dependent on opioids, coverage is low, even in high-income countries,” the authors wrote. They also called for international efforts to eliminate marketing strategies that have contributed to the increase in opioid prescription and harms in North America.

The second paper examined the public health implications of legalizing cannabis for medicinal and recreational use (Hall W et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31789-1). Cannabis has been considered an illicit drug for more than 50 years but recently has been decriminalized or legalized in many parts of the world in recognition of the lower levels of harm, compared with other illicit substances.

Cannabis is used to treat a range of medical conditions, including muscle spasticity in multiple sclerosis. It also is used to treat pain, nausea, and vomiting in palliative care, and to reduce seizures in epilepsy. However, the authors noted that the evidence for many medical applications was absent, and that weakly regulated medical cannabis programs in some U.S. states were blurring the boundaries between medicinal and nonmedicinal use.

They also wrote that the public health effects of legalization could not be assessed, because legalization had happened only in the last 5 years.

“A major determinant of the public health effect of cannabis legalization will be the effect that it has on alcohol use,” they wrote. “The substitution of cannabis for alcohol would produce substantial public health gains, but any increase in the combined use of alcohol and cannabis could increase harm.”

The authors also looked at the effect of use of stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines. While their use is associated with higher mortality, increased incidence of HIV and hepatitis C infection, poor mental health, and increased risk of cardiovascular events, no effective pharmacotherapies are available, and psychosocial interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy have only a weak effect.

“Many governments rely on punitive responses, such as involuntary detention in drug centers, despite the absence of evidence for their effectiveness and their potential to increase harm,” the authors wrote. “Substantial research investment is needed to develop more effective, innovative, and impactful prevention and treatment” (Farrell M et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32230-5).

They focused on interventions to prevent the transmission of blood-borne and sexually transmitted infections – such as the provision of safe injecting equipment, condoms or pre-exposure prophylaxis against HIV – and improve treatment of these, and interventions to prevent and treat overdose, injury, and other harms.

The final paper in the series explored new psychoactive substances, such as synthetic cannabinoids, stimulants, hallucinogens, and dissociative and depressant substances (Peacock A et al. Lancet 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32231-7).

There really needs to be massive change in systems in terms of the way monitoring occurs and the speed with which new drugs are identified, Dr. Degenhardt said in the interview. She also said the risks that are identified need to be communicated more effectively.

“At the moment, the way that drug surveillance works in most countries, things come and then particular drugs may spread in use, cause massive harm, and all of our systems of detecting and responding are not fit to detect those things in a timely way and disseminate information to reduce those risks.”

The papers were supported by European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction, and the Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. The authors declared support from a range of institutions and funding bodies, and several also declared unrelated grants, funding, and other support from the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCES: Degenhardt L et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32229-9; Hall W et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31789-1; Farrell M et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32230-5; and Peacock A et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32231-7.

Strategies aimed at reducing drug-related harm should be informed by evidence, and recognize the contribution of social and economic factors to drug use, report the authors of a series of four papers published in The Lancet.

Louisa Degenhardt, PhD, and coauthors wrote in the first paper that, although the availability and use of drugs have been transformed over recent decades – including the emergence of hundreds of new psychoactive substances – professional and public policy has not yet adapted to those new realities (Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32229-9).

“In many instances we have, in many countries, and in many debates, the things that are implemented are not evidence-based, and the discussion around illicit drugs is often in an incredibly emotive and morally laden one, in a way that you don’t see in other areas of public health,” Dr. Degenhardt, of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, said in an interview. “There has been an increasing level of awareness of issues but also level of recognition that we need to have hard evidence to work out the best ways to respond.”

The paper by Dr. Degenhardt and coauthors addressed the issue of opioid use and dependence around the world, citing evidence that in 2017, 40.5 million people were dependent on opioids and 109,500 deaths were attributable to opioid overdose. An effective treatment exists in the form of opioid agonists methadone and buprenorphine, both of which are recognized as World Health Organization essential medicines.

While the best evidence for positive outcomes from opioid agonist treatment is in people using illicit opioids such as heroin, there is also evidence for their effectiveness in people with pharmaceutical opioid dependence. A study in Kentucky suggested that scaling up the use and retention of opioid agonist treatment, including in prison, could prevent 57% of overdose deaths among injecting drug users.

“Despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of a range of interventions to improve the health and well-being of people who are dependent on opioids, coverage is low, even in high-income countries,” the authors wrote. They also called for international efforts to eliminate marketing strategies that have contributed to the increase in opioid prescription and harms in North America.

The second paper examined the public health implications of legalizing cannabis for medicinal and recreational use (Hall W et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31789-1). Cannabis has been considered an illicit drug for more than 50 years but recently has been decriminalized or legalized in many parts of the world in recognition of the lower levels of harm, compared with other illicit substances.

Cannabis is used to treat a range of medical conditions, including muscle spasticity in multiple sclerosis. It also is used to treat pain, nausea, and vomiting in palliative care, and to reduce seizures in epilepsy. However, the authors noted that the evidence for many medical applications was absent, and that weakly regulated medical cannabis programs in some U.S. states were blurring the boundaries between medicinal and nonmedicinal use.

They also wrote that the public health effects of legalization could not be assessed, because legalization had happened only in the last 5 years.

“A major determinant of the public health effect of cannabis legalization will be the effect that it has on alcohol use,” they wrote. “The substitution of cannabis for alcohol would produce substantial public health gains, but any increase in the combined use of alcohol and cannabis could increase harm.”

The authors also looked at the effect of use of stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines. While their use is associated with higher mortality, increased incidence of HIV and hepatitis C infection, poor mental health, and increased risk of cardiovascular events, no effective pharmacotherapies are available, and psychosocial interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy have only a weak effect.

“Many governments rely on punitive responses, such as involuntary detention in drug centers, despite the absence of evidence for their effectiveness and their potential to increase harm,” the authors wrote. “Substantial research investment is needed to develop more effective, innovative, and impactful prevention and treatment” (Farrell M et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32230-5).

They focused on interventions to prevent the transmission of blood-borne and sexually transmitted infections – such as the provision of safe injecting equipment, condoms or pre-exposure prophylaxis against HIV – and improve treatment of these, and interventions to prevent and treat overdose, injury, and other harms.

The final paper in the series explored new psychoactive substances, such as synthetic cannabinoids, stimulants, hallucinogens, and dissociative and depressant substances (Peacock A et al. Lancet 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32231-7).

There really needs to be massive change in systems in terms of the way monitoring occurs and the speed with which new drugs are identified, Dr. Degenhardt said in the interview. She also said the risks that are identified need to be communicated more effectively.

“At the moment, the way that drug surveillance works in most countries, things come and then particular drugs may spread in use, cause massive harm, and all of our systems of detecting and responding are not fit to detect those things in a timely way and disseminate information to reduce those risks.”

The papers were supported by European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction, and the Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. The authors declared support from a range of institutions and funding bodies, and several also declared unrelated grants, funding, and other support from the pharmaceutical sector.

SOURCES: Degenhardt L et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32229-9; Hall W et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31789-1; Farrell M et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32230-5; and Peacock A et al. Lancet. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32231-7.