Article

Key clinical point: Three different ketogenic diets (KD)—very-low-calorie ketogenic diet (VLCKD), low-glycemic-index diet (LGID), and 2:1 KD—improved migraine frequency, migraine intensity, and fatigue in patients with chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine.

Major finding: At 3 months, all three KD led to a significant reduction in the fatigue severity scale (FSS) scores, along with reductions in the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) scores, and Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT-6) scores (all P < .001). The mean reduction in FSS had positive correlation with the mean reduction in MIDAS (r = 0.361; P = .002) and HIT-6 (r = 0.344; P = .001) scores.

Study details: This retrospective single-center pilot study included 76 patients with chronic or high-frequency episodic migraine who followed three different KD                                 (VLCKD, LGID, or 2:1 KD) for ≥3 months.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tereshko Y, Dal Bello S, et al. The effect of three different ketogenic diet protocols on migraine and fatigue in chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine: A pilot study. Nutrients. 2023;15(20):4334 (Oct 11). doi: 10.3390/nu15204334

Key clinical point: Three different ketogenic diets (KD)—very-low-calorie ketogenic diet (VLCKD), low-glycemic-index diet (LGID), and 2:1 KD—improved migraine frequency, migraine intensity, and fatigue in patients with chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine.

Major finding: At 3 months, all three KD led to a significant reduction in the fatigue severity scale (FSS) scores, along with reductions in the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) scores, and Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT-6) scores (all P < .001). The mean reduction in FSS had positive correlation with the mean reduction in MIDAS (r = 0.361; P = .002) and HIT-6 (r = 0.344; P = .001) scores.

Study details: This retrospective single-center pilot study included 76 patients with chronic or high-frequency episodic migraine who followed three different KD                                 (VLCKD, LGID, or 2:1 KD) for ≥3 months.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tereshko Y, Dal Bello S, et al. The effect of three different ketogenic diet protocols on migraine and fatigue in chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine: A pilot study. Nutrients. 2023;15(20):4334 (Oct 11). doi: 10.3390/nu15204334

Key clinical point: Three different ketogenic diets (KD)—very-low-calorie ketogenic diet (VLCKD), low-glycemic-index diet (LGID), and 2:1 KD—improved migraine frequency, migraine intensity, and fatigue in patients with chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine.

Major finding: At 3 months, all three KD led to a significant reduction in the fatigue severity scale (FSS) scores, along with reductions in the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) scores, and Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT-6) scores (all P < .001). The mean reduction in FSS had positive correlation with the mean reduction in MIDAS (r = 0.361; P = .002) and HIT-6 (r = 0.344; P = .001) scores.

Study details: This retrospective single-center pilot study included 76 patients with chronic or high-frequency episodic migraine who followed three different KD                                 (VLCKD, LGID, or 2:1 KD) for ≥3 months.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tereshko Y, Dal Bello S, et al. The effect of three different ketogenic diet protocols on migraine and fatigue in chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine: A pilot study. Nutrients. 2023;15(20):4334 (Oct 11). doi: 10.3390/nu15204334

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0>
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0>
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0>
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Breast cancer in young women presents a unique set of challenges owing to life-stage at the time of diagnosis and treatment. Oncofertility, family planning, and pregnancy are essential issues to address at the time of initial consultation and throughout the survivorship setting. Various studies have provided supportive evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.³ HR+ breast cancer is associated with its own distinctive considerations related to pregnancy and its timing, including the use of endocrine therapy for 5-10 years, the role of female hormones during pregnancy, and late patterns of recurrence that characterize this subtype. A meta-analysis including eight eligible studies and 3805 women with HR+ early breast cancer investigated the prognostic impact of future pregnancy among these patients (Arecco et al). A total of 1285 women had a pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment; there was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = .781) and better overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.27-0.77; P < .005) in those with vs those without subsequent pregnancy. Added to this body of data is the prospective POSITIVE trial, which showed that a temporary pause of endocrine therapy for an attempt at conceiving appears to be safe in young women with early HR+ breast cancer with short-term follow-up.⁴ Future research efforts investigating outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies in this population, those with germline mutations, and extended follow-up of studies, such as POSITIVE, will continue to inform guidance for and management of young women with breast cancer.

Guidelines favor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for small, node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), specifically T1b and T1c tumors.⁵ However, high-quality data to inform this decision-making are sparse, and it is valuable to consider the magnitude of benefit weighed against possible risks and side effects of treatment, as well as patient comorbidities. A retrospective analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database including 11,510 patients (3388 with T1b and 8122 with T1c TNBC) evaluated the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on OS and breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) (Carbajal-Ochoa et al). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62; P < .001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P = .043) among T1c TNBC. For those with T1b tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.41-0.68; P < .001) but did not improve BCSS (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.07; P = .10). A better understanding of the molecular drivers implicated in this heterogeneous subtype, and predictors of response and resistance, will aid in identifying those patients who have greater benefit and those who can potentially be spared chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Additional References

1. Anwar SL, Cahyono R, Prabowo D, et al. Metabolic comorbidities and the association with risks of recurrent metastatic disease in breast cancer survivors. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:590. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08343-0
2. Sestak I, Distler W, Forbes JF, et al. Effect of body mass index on recurrences in tamoxifen and anastrozole treated women: An exploratory analysis from the ATAC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3411-3415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2021
3. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00535
4. Partridge AH, Niman SM, Ruggeri M, et al for the International Breast Cancer Study Group and POSITIVE Trial Collaborators. Interrupting endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy after breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1645-1656. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2212856
5. Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: The St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700-1712. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx308

Schlösser and colleagues provide a real-world report of 48 patients treated with upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis, many of whom had previously been treated with cyclosporine and dupilumab. The upbeat authors concluded, "Overall, adverse events were mostly well tolerated." Being a cynical, glass-is-half-empty kind of person, I wondered what that meant. Most patients (56%) reported adverse events, the most common being acne (25% of patients treated), nausea (13%), respiratory tract infections (10%), and herpes virus (8%). The herpes virus signal is not just a bit of a concern for me, but it also makes it hard for me to convince patients to take a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, as when I even mention herpes, patients reply, often rather emphatically, "I don't want herpes!" I'll be encouraging patients to get vaccinated for shingles when starting them on JAK inhibitors.

Dupilumab seems to work great in real-life use. In Martinez-Cabriales and colleagues' study of 62 children age < 12 with atopic dermatitis, only four discontinued the treatment. One of these was a nonresponder who took only one injection and had flushing, and one of the other three discontinued because their skin had completely cleared.

When I saw the title of Rand and colleagues' article, "Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Long-Term Efficacy Maintenance and Adverse Event Rates of Lebrikizumab Versus Dupilumab in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis," I thought, Oh, this is great — a head-to-head, long-term trial comparing lebrikizumab and dupilumab. I was disappointed to find that this was simply a retrospective analysis of data reported from different studies. The study found little difference in efficacy or safety of the two drugs. Both seem to be excellent medications for atopic dermatitis.

Here's another study (Zhou et al) that reports possible increased risk for a comorbidity (cognitive dysfunction) associated with atopic dermatitis. This study reports that there is an elevated hazard ratio that is statistically significant; the article fails to report what the increased absolute risk is for cognitive dysfunction associated with atopic dermatitis. My guess is that it is small and probably clinically unimportant. The hazard ratio for developing dementia was 1.16. It's hard to know how that translates into absolute risk, but my brilliant friend and former partner, Dr Alan Fleischer, once told me that the odds ratio for smoking and lung cancer is something like 100; the hazard ratio is in the range of 20. On the basis of a hazard ratio of 1.16, I don't think patients with atopic dermatitis need to be any more worried about dementia than those without. (Though, to be honest, I think we can all be worried about developing dementia.)

In this tour de force analysis of 83 trials with over 20,000 participants, Drucker and colleagues determined that high doses of abrocitinib and upadacitinib are more effective than even dupilumab for atopic dermatitis. The standard doses of these JAK inhibitors were similar in efficacy to dupilumab. I think it's safe to say that JAK inhibitors are, at least at their high doses, more effective than dupilumab, but safety remains a critical factor in treatment decision-making. I think JAK inhibitors are a great option for patients who need the most effective treatment or who fail to respond to dupilumab.

The title of the article by Oh and colleagues, "Increased Risk of Renal Malignancy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis," seems like it could terrify patients. The study involved an analysis of an enormous number of people, including tens of thousands with atopic dermatitis and millions of controls. The investigators did find statistically significant differences in the rate of malignancy. The rate of renal cancer was about 1.6 per 10,000 person-years for people without atopic dermatitis or people with mild atopic dermatitis; the rate was about 2.5 per 10,000 people for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. While the rate of renal cancer was statistically significantly higher in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (ie, the higher rate was unlikely to be occurring due to chance alone), these patients have very little risk for renal malignancy. The authors' conclusion that regular checkups for renal malignancy are recommended for patients with severe atopic dermatitis seems unnecessary to me.

Schlösser and colleagues provide a real-world report of 48 patients treated with upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis, many of whom had previously been treated with cyclosporine and dupilumab. The upbeat authors concluded, "Overall, adverse events were mostly well tolerated." Being a cynical, glass-is-half-empty kind of person, I wondered what that meant. Most patients (56%) reported adverse events, the most common being acne (25% of patients treated), nausea (13%), respiratory tract infections (10%), and herpes virus (8%). The herpes virus signal is not just a bit of a concern for me, but it also makes it hard for me to convince patients to take a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, as when I even mention herpes, patients reply, often rather emphatically, "I don't want herpes!" I'll be encouraging patients to get vaccinated for shingles when starting them on JAK inhibitors.

Dupilumab seems to work great in real-life use. In Martinez-Cabriales and colleagues' study of 62 children age < 12 with atopic dermatitis, only four discontinued the treatment. One of these was a nonresponder who took only one injection and had flushing, and one of the other three discontinued because their skin had completely cleared.

When I saw the title of Rand and colleagues' article, "Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Long-Term Efficacy Maintenance and Adverse Event Rates of Lebrikizumab Versus Dupilumab in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis," I thought, Oh, this is great — a head-to-head, long-term trial comparing lebrikizumab and dupilumab. I was disappointed to find that this was simply a retrospective analysis of data reported from different studies. The study found little difference in efficacy or safety of the two drugs. Both seem to be excellent medications for atopic dermatitis.

Here's another study (Zhou et al) that reports possible increased risk for a comorbidity (cognitive dysfunction) associated with atopic dermatitis. This study reports that there is an elevated hazard ratio that is statistically significant; the article fails to report what the increased absolute risk is for cognitive dysfunction associated with atopic dermatitis. My guess is that it is small and probably clinically unimportant. The hazard ratio for developing dementia was 1.16. It's hard to know how that translates into absolute risk, but my brilliant friend and former partner, Dr Alan Fleischer, once told me that the odds ratio for smoking and lung cancer is something like 100; the hazard ratio is in the range of 20. On the basis of a hazard ratio of 1.16, I don't think patients with atopic dermatitis need to be any more worried about dementia than those without. (Though, to be honest, I think we can all be worried about developing dementia.)

In this tour de force analysis of 83 trials with over 20,000 participants, Drucker and colleagues determined that high doses of abrocitinib and upadacitinib are more effective than even dupilumab for atopic dermatitis. The standard doses of these JAK inhibitors were similar in efficacy to dupilumab. I think it's safe to say that JAK inhibitors are, at least at their high doses, more effective than dupilumab, but safety remains a critical factor in treatment decision-making. I think JAK inhibitors are a great option for patients who need the most effective treatment or who fail to respond to dupilumab.

The title of the article by Oh and colleagues, "Increased Risk of Renal Malignancy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis," seems like it could terrify patients. The study involved an analysis of an enormous number of people, including tens of thousands with atopic dermatitis and millions of controls. The investigators did find statistically significant differences in the rate of malignancy. The rate of renal cancer was about 1.6 per 10,000 person-years for people without atopic dermatitis or people with mild atopic dermatitis; the rate was about 2.5 per 10,000 people for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. While the rate of renal cancer was statistically significantly higher in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (ie, the higher rate was unlikely to be occurring due to chance alone), these patients have very little risk for renal malignancy. The authors' conclusion that regular checkups for renal malignancy are recommended for patients with severe atopic dermatitis seems unnecessary to me.

Schlösser and colleagues provide a real-world report of 48 patients treated with upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis, many of whom had previously been treated with cyclosporine and dupilumab. The upbeat authors concluded, "Overall, adverse events were mostly well tolerated." Being a cynical, glass-is-half-empty kind of person, I wondered what that meant. Most patients (56%) reported adverse events, the most common being acne (25% of patients treated), nausea (13%), respiratory tract infections (10%), and herpes virus (8%). The herpes virus signal is not just a bit of a concern for me, but it also makes it hard for me to convince patients to take a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, as when I even mention herpes, patients reply, often rather emphatically, "I don't want herpes!" I'll be encouraging patients to get vaccinated for shingles when starting them on JAK inhibitors.

Dupilumab seems to work great in real-life use. In Martinez-Cabriales and colleagues' study of 62 children age < 12 with atopic dermatitis, only four discontinued the treatment. One of these was a nonresponder who took only one injection and had flushing, and one of the other three discontinued because their skin had completely cleared.

When I saw the title of Rand and colleagues' article, "Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Long-Term Efficacy Maintenance and Adverse Event Rates of Lebrikizumab Versus Dupilumab in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis," I thought, Oh, this is great — a head-to-head, long-term trial comparing lebrikizumab and dupilumab. I was disappointed to find that this was simply a retrospective analysis of data reported from different studies. The study found little difference in efficacy or safety of the two drugs. Both seem to be excellent medications for atopic dermatitis.

Here's another study (Zhou et al) that reports possible increased risk for a comorbidity (cognitive dysfunction) associated with atopic dermatitis. This study reports that there is an elevated hazard ratio that is statistically significant; the article fails to report what the increased absolute risk is for cognitive dysfunction associated with atopic dermatitis. My guess is that it is small and probably clinically unimportant. The hazard ratio for developing dementia was 1.16. It's hard to know how that translates into absolute risk, but my brilliant friend and former partner, Dr Alan Fleischer, once told me that the odds ratio for smoking and lung cancer is something like 100; the hazard ratio is in the range of 20. On the basis of a hazard ratio of 1.16, I don't think patients with atopic dermatitis need to be any more worried about dementia than those without. (Though, to be honest, I think we can all be worried about developing dementia.)

In this tour de force analysis of 83 trials with over 20,000 participants, Drucker and colleagues determined that high doses of abrocitinib and upadacitinib are more effective than even dupilumab for atopic dermatitis. The standard doses of these JAK inhibitors were similar in efficacy to dupilumab. I think it's safe to say that JAK inhibitors are, at least at their high doses, more effective than dupilumab, but safety remains a critical factor in treatment decision-making. I think JAK inhibitors are a great option for patients who need the most effective treatment or who fail to respond to dupilumab.

The title of the article by Oh and colleagues, "Increased Risk of Renal Malignancy in Patients With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis," seems like it could terrify patients. The study involved an analysis of an enormous number of people, including tens of thousands with atopic dermatitis and millions of controls. The investigators did find statistically significant differences in the rate of malignancy. The rate of renal cancer was about 1.6 per 10,000 person-years for people without atopic dermatitis or people with mild atopic dermatitis; the rate was about 2.5 per 10,000 people for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. While the rate of renal cancer was statistically significantly higher in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (ie, the higher rate was unlikely to be occurring due to chance alone), these patients have very little risk for renal malignancy. The authors' conclusion that regular checkups for renal malignancy are recommended for patients with severe atopic dermatitis seems unnecessary to me.

Dr. Rapoport: Most patients who come into my office today, even those whom I have
treated for the last 30 years for acute care of migraine attacks, are taking 1 of the 7
triptan medications available. They might be taking triptans as a tablet—the most
common form—as a nasal spray, or by injection; however, not all patients are suited for
triptans, and sometimes, the need arises to switch to a different class of medication for
treating migraine acutely.
 
What are the reasons patients switch from a triptan to a gepant?
For some patients, triptans are not working well enough or are causing adverse events.
Other patients have developed cardiac risk factors such as elevated blood pressure,
obesity, smoking, and/or lack of exercise. I am always concerned about constriction of
the coronary blood vessels. Patients who already have some cardiac risk factors and
those who have some actual cardiac disease or have had a previous heart attack
already have constriction of their blood vessels and are not candidates for triptans, as
they are contraindicated.
 
How do you switch a patient from a triptan to a gepant? 
It is important to have some discussion with the patient before the switch. For example,
if a patient with no cardiac risk factors comes into the office asking about this new
medicine, I will ask them several questions about their triptan to ensure it works well
enough (ie, to ascertain if the patient’s migraines improve within 30 to 60 minutes and
are much better within 2 hours of taking the medication). I want to be sure that they do
not have any adverse events related to the triptan, such as chest pain, drowsiness, or
dizziness. I like to ensure that whatever they are taking works long enough—at least 24
hours, preferably 48 hours—so they no longer have a headache, especially the next
day. If the headache comes back the next day, they must re-treat. If I determine the

triptan is not working well for them or they have significant adverse events, I will move
on.
 
Gepants are small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor
antagonists, which are pills that only last for 2 to 3 days in the body. There are 2
gepants for acute care and 2 for the prevention of migraine. The first gepant approved
by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for acute care was ubrogepant
(Ubrelvy), which comes in 2 sizes, 50 mg or 100 mg tablets. I sometimes start with 50
mg, but for the more difficult migraine patient, I will start with 100 mg. If the medicine is
not doing a complete job within 2 hours, the patient may take a second dose, up to 200
mg. Some adverse events may include nausea or slight drowsiness. The patient should
avoid certain medicines such as antifungal medicines (eg, ketoconazole, itraconazole)
and certain antibiotics like clarithromycin. 
 
Another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec), comes in only 1 size, a 75-mg oral disintegrating
tablet, which can be used both for acute care of migraine and for prevention. Patients
can take a tablet as soon as their migraine attack begins, and they are not to repeat it
that day. If the headache does not go away in 2 hours, I want them to then take a triptan
and an anti-inflammatory drug (there is no contraindication to mix these drugs). I want
them to try it at least 1 more time, encouraging patients to take it early, right at the start
of the headache. If the medicine is still not working by the second or third time, they
should stop using it. Preventively, patients take 75 mg every other day, which can be
quite effective. Side effects are slight nausea and some abdominal pain or dyspepsia.
 
A third gepant is atogepant (Qulipta), which is only for migraine prevention. It comes in
10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg and is taken once every day as a preventive. It can cause
some drowsiness, constipation, and nausea.
 
Are there any other acute care drugs you recommend if triptans are not working?
Yes, there is another drug class called the ditans. These medications work very well but
have more adverse events associated with them than I like. A higher percentage of

patients seem to be pain-free in 2 hours when using a ditan; however, the only one
available, lasmiditan (Reyvow), has never been studied against a gepant, so I cannot
say if one is better than the other. Lasmitidan works similarly to a triptan by stimulating
serotonin 1F receptors but does not constrict blood vessels. Up to 15% of patients have
dizziness and up to 7% have drowsiness, so patients should not drive within 8 hours
after taking lasmiditan. This medication is available in 2 sizes, 100 mg and 200 mg. I
usually give patients a 200-mg dose, which is good enough for 24 hours. Ditans are a
Schedule V drug, meaning some patients might take more than they should because it
makes them feel good. It can be a challenging drug to get, but it is an excellent acute
care drug when none of the mentioned adverse events occur.
 
Which preventive drugs do you tend to prescribe your patients for migraine since
triptans are not preventive?
For many years, we have used some of the older preventives. Antidepressants can be
an option for preventive treatment of migraine. Amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, is
a pretty good medicine. However, it has a lot of adverse events associated with it,
including dry mouth, weight gain, and drowsiness, so patients who take this at night
often sleep better. The dose is 10 mg to 50 mg taken before bed. This drug is often
used, but I would not say I like to prescribe it as much as other medications, even
though amitriptyline is effective and likely to work by affecting the level of serotonin and
other chemicals in the brain. There is little evidence that other classes of
antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and
norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, are effective for migraine prevention. Adverse
effects may include weight gain, fatigue, constipation, and dry mouth, making it difficult
for a patient to stick with treatment.

Beta blockers are another preventive medication option for migraine. Beta blockers are
best known as a medical treatment for cardiovascular conditions, such as hypertension,
stable or unstable angina, and congestive heart failure. Beta blockers prevent the stress
hormone adrenaline (epinephrine) from binding to beta receptors, slowing heart rate
and lowering blood pressure. A commonly used beta blocker is propranolol (Inderal),

which also comes in a long-acting preparation. Doses range from 60 mg to 180
mg. Other beta blockers effective for migraine prevention include metoprolol, nadolol,
and atenolol.
 
Many of my patients are young, healthy females who like to exercise. Most report that
their heart rate is slow, they get short of breath, and they cannot exercise as effectively
while on a beta blocker. It also takes about 2 months until this medication starts
working. Patients may feel as if they are having too many adverse events, so I start
them on a very low dose and build it up gradually for a month and see how they are
feeling.
 
Epilepsy medicines can also be used to prevent migraine. There are 2 common
epilepsy medications. Topiramate (Topamax) doses can range from 75 mg to 100 mg
and are sometimes higher. Topiramate is a good medicine, but there are many potential
adverse events: tingling in the extremities, difficulty finding words when speaking,
confusion, raised eye pressure, and others. Divalproex sodium (Depakote) is another
popular medication, available in 500 mg to 1000 mg doses. This medicine can cause
some endocrine problems in women and can also damage the spinal cords of a fetus,
so this drug should not be taken during early pregnancy.
 
Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP are a strong preventive medication and a new
class of drugs that were first approved by the FDA in 2018. They are designed to
prevent episodic migraine (up to 14 headache days per month), chronic migraine (15 or
more headache days per month) and seem to work when a patient has medication
overuse headaches. CGRP is a neuropeptide involved in many body processes,
including blood pressure regulation, tissue repair, wound healing, and inflammation, and
is a potent vasodilator. When CGRP is released in the brain, it affects the trigeminal
nerve, increasing pain transmission and sensitivities to touch and temperature. CGRP
also causes inflammation and pain that happen during a migraine; it makes headache
pain worse and causes headaches to last longer.

Some CGRP inhibitors block CGRP from binding to CGRP receptors, a key contributor
to the trigeminal nerve pain and inflammation of migraine, while some grab the CGRP
and prevent it from activating the receptor. 

The 2 classes of these drugs are monoclonal antibodies against CGRP and small
molecule CGRP antagonists. Fortunately, CGRPs have long half-lives and work for 1 to
3 months. The CGRP monoclonal antibodies are large molecule drugs. There are 4
different types, and 2 of them are injected by the patient at home once a month. One
can be injected at home once a month or every 3 months. For the latter option, patients
need to triple up with 3 injections in one day, so they do not have to inject for 3 months.
The fourth CGRP is an intravenous infusion that can be administered in an infusion
center or at home. This one is more inconvenient, but it is a strong drug. The small
molecule CGRP antagonists are taken by mouth in pill form. All CGRPs have been
shown to decrease the number of headaches per month.
 
The main goal of preventive therapy is to lessen the impact of migraines on patients’
lives by reducing how often they occur, how severe they are, and how long they last.
Preventive therapy also decreases disability and improves patients’ functioning over
time. Preventive therapy can help keep the costs for migraine care down by reducing
the need for acute treatments and allowing the patient to keep working or taking care of
their kids. Furthermore, preventive medications can make acute migraine treatments
more effective and help avoid the overuse of acute medications.

Dr. Rapoport: Most patients who come into my office today, even those whom I have
treated for the last 30 years for acute care of migraine attacks, are taking 1 of the 7
triptan medications available. They might be taking triptans as a tablet—the most
common form—as a nasal spray, or by injection; however, not all patients are suited for
triptans, and sometimes, the need arises to switch to a different class of medication for
treating migraine acutely.
 
What are the reasons patients switch from a triptan to a gepant?
For some patients, triptans are not working well enough or are causing adverse events.
Other patients have developed cardiac risk factors such as elevated blood pressure,
obesity, smoking, and/or lack of exercise. I am always concerned about constriction of
the coronary blood vessels. Patients who already have some cardiac risk factors and
those who have some actual cardiac disease or have had a previous heart attack
already have constriction of their blood vessels and are not candidates for triptans, as
they are contraindicated.
 
How do you switch a patient from a triptan to a gepant? 
It is important to have some discussion with the patient before the switch. For example,
if a patient with no cardiac risk factors comes into the office asking about this new
medicine, I will ask them several questions about their triptan to ensure it works well
enough (ie, to ascertain if the patient’s migraines improve within 30 to 60 minutes and
are much better within 2 hours of taking the medication). I want to be sure that they do
not have any adverse events related to the triptan, such as chest pain, drowsiness, or
dizziness. I like to ensure that whatever they are taking works long enough—at least 24
hours, preferably 48 hours—so they no longer have a headache, especially the next
day. If the headache comes back the next day, they must re-treat. If I determine the

triptan is not working well for them or they have significant adverse events, I will move
on.
 
Gepants are small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor
antagonists, which are pills that only last for 2 to 3 days in the body. There are 2
gepants for acute care and 2 for the prevention of migraine. The first gepant approved
by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for acute care was ubrogepant
(Ubrelvy), which comes in 2 sizes, 50 mg or 100 mg tablets. I sometimes start with 50
mg, but for the more difficult migraine patient, I will start with 100 mg. If the medicine is
not doing a complete job within 2 hours, the patient may take a second dose, up to 200
mg. Some adverse events may include nausea or slight drowsiness. The patient should
avoid certain medicines such as antifungal medicines (eg, ketoconazole, itraconazole)
and certain antibiotics like clarithromycin. 
 
Another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec), comes in only 1 size, a 75-mg oral disintegrating
tablet, which can be used both for acute care of migraine and for prevention. Patients
can take a tablet as soon as their migraine attack begins, and they are not to repeat it
that day. If the headache does not go away in 2 hours, I want them to then take a triptan
and an anti-inflammatory drug (there is no contraindication to mix these drugs). I want
them to try it at least 1 more time, encouraging patients to take it early, right at the start
of the headache. If the medicine is still not working by the second or third time, they
should stop using it. Preventively, patients take 75 mg every other day, which can be
quite effective. Side effects are slight nausea and some abdominal pain or dyspepsia.
 
A third gepant is atogepant (Qulipta), which is only for migraine prevention. It comes in
10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg and is taken once every day as a preventive. It can cause
some drowsiness, constipation, and nausea.
 
Are there any other acute care drugs you recommend if triptans are not working?
Yes, there is another drug class called the ditans. These medications work very well but
have more adverse events associated with them than I like. A higher percentage of

patients seem to be pain-free in 2 hours when using a ditan; however, the only one
available, lasmiditan (Reyvow), has never been studied against a gepant, so I cannot
say if one is better than the other. Lasmitidan works similarly to a triptan by stimulating
serotonin 1F receptors but does not constrict blood vessels. Up to 15% of patients have
dizziness and up to 7% have drowsiness, so patients should not drive within 8 hours
after taking lasmiditan. This medication is available in 2 sizes, 100 mg and 200 mg. I
usually give patients a 200-mg dose, which is good enough for 24 hours. Ditans are a
Schedule V drug, meaning some patients might take more than they should because it
makes them feel good. It can be a challenging drug to get, but it is an excellent acute
care drug when none of the mentioned adverse events occur.
 
Which preventive drugs do you tend to prescribe your patients for migraine since
triptans are not preventive?
For many years, we have used some of the older preventives. Antidepressants can be
an option for preventive treatment of migraine. Amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, is
a pretty good medicine. However, it has a lot of adverse events associated with it,
including dry mouth, weight gain, and drowsiness, so patients who take this at night
often sleep better. The dose is 10 mg to 50 mg taken before bed. This drug is often
used, but I would not say I like to prescribe it as much as other medications, even
though amitriptyline is effective and likely to work by affecting the level of serotonin and
other chemicals in the brain. There is little evidence that other classes of
antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and
norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, are effective for migraine prevention. Adverse
effects may include weight gain, fatigue, constipation, and dry mouth, making it difficult
for a patient to stick with treatment.

Beta blockers are another preventive medication option for migraine. Beta blockers are
best known as a medical treatment for cardiovascular conditions, such as hypertension,
stable or unstable angina, and congestive heart failure. Beta blockers prevent the stress
hormone adrenaline (epinephrine) from binding to beta receptors, slowing heart rate
and lowering blood pressure. A commonly used beta blocker is propranolol (Inderal),

which also comes in a long-acting preparation. Doses range from 60 mg to 180
mg. Other beta blockers effective for migraine prevention include metoprolol, nadolol,
and atenolol.
 
Many of my patients are young, healthy females who like to exercise. Most report that
their heart rate is slow, they get short of breath, and they cannot exercise as effectively
while on a beta blocker. It also takes about 2 months until this medication starts
working. Patients may feel as if they are having too many adverse events, so I start
them on a very low dose and build it up gradually for a month and see how they are
feeling.
 
Epilepsy medicines can also be used to prevent migraine. There are 2 common
epilepsy medications. Topiramate (Topamax) doses can range from 75 mg to 100 mg
and are sometimes higher. Topiramate is a good medicine, but there are many potential
adverse events: tingling in the extremities, difficulty finding words when speaking,
confusion, raised eye pressure, and others. Divalproex sodium (Depakote) is another
popular medication, available in 500 mg to 1000 mg doses. This medicine can cause
some endocrine problems in women and can also damage the spinal cords of a fetus,
so this drug should not be taken during early pregnancy.
 
Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP are a strong preventive medication and a new
class of drugs that were first approved by the FDA in 2018. They are designed to
prevent episodic migraine (up to 14 headache days per month), chronic migraine (15 or
more headache days per month) and seem to work when a patient has medication
overuse headaches. CGRP is a neuropeptide involved in many body processes,
including blood pressure regulation, tissue repair, wound healing, and inflammation, and
is a potent vasodilator. When CGRP is released in the brain, it affects the trigeminal
nerve, increasing pain transmission and sensitivities to touch and temperature. CGRP
also causes inflammation and pain that happen during a migraine; it makes headache
pain worse and causes headaches to last longer.

Some CGRP inhibitors block CGRP from binding to CGRP receptors, a key contributor
to the trigeminal nerve pain and inflammation of migraine, while some grab the CGRP
and prevent it from activating the receptor. 

The 2 classes of these drugs are monoclonal antibodies against CGRP and small
molecule CGRP antagonists. Fortunately, CGRPs have long half-lives and work for 1 to
3 months. The CGRP monoclonal antibodies are large molecule drugs. There are 4
different types, and 2 of them are injected by the patient at home once a month. One
can be injected at home once a month or every 3 months. For the latter option, patients
need to triple up with 3 injections in one day, so they do not have to inject for 3 months.
The fourth CGRP is an intravenous infusion that can be administered in an infusion
center or at home. This one is more inconvenient, but it is a strong drug. The small
molecule CGRP antagonists are taken by mouth in pill form. All CGRPs have been
shown to decrease the number of headaches per month.
 
The main goal of preventive therapy is to lessen the impact of migraines on patients’
lives by reducing how often they occur, how severe they are, and how long they last.
Preventive therapy also decreases disability and improves patients’ functioning over
time. Preventive therapy can help keep the costs for migraine care down by reducing
the need for acute treatments and allowing the patient to keep working or taking care of
their kids. Furthermore, preventive medications can make acute migraine treatments
more effective and help avoid the overuse of acute medications.

Dr. Rapoport: Most patients who come into my office today, even those whom I have
treated for the last 30 years for acute care of migraine attacks, are taking 1 of the 7
triptan medications available. They might be taking triptans as a tablet—the most
common form—as a nasal spray, or by injection; however, not all patients are suited for
triptans, and sometimes, the need arises to switch to a different class of medication for
treating migraine acutely.
 
What are the reasons patients switch from a triptan to a gepant?
For some patients, triptans are not working well enough or are causing adverse events.
Other patients have developed cardiac risk factors such as elevated blood pressure,
obesity, smoking, and/or lack of exercise. I am always concerned about constriction of
the coronary blood vessels. Patients who already have some cardiac risk factors and
those who have some actual cardiac disease or have had a previous heart attack
already have constriction of their blood vessels and are not candidates for triptans, as
they are contraindicated.
 
How do you switch a patient from a triptan to a gepant? 
It is important to have some discussion with the patient before the switch. For example,
if a patient with no cardiac risk factors comes into the office asking about this new
medicine, I will ask them several questions about their triptan to ensure it works well
enough (ie, to ascertain if the patient’s migraines improve within 30 to 60 minutes and
are much better within 2 hours of taking the medication). I want to be sure that they do
not have any adverse events related to the triptan, such as chest pain, drowsiness, or
dizziness. I like to ensure that whatever they are taking works long enough—at least 24
hours, preferably 48 hours—so they no longer have a headache, especially the next
day. If the headache comes back the next day, they must re-treat. If I determine the

triptan is not working well for them or they have significant adverse events, I will move
on.
 
Gepants are small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor
antagonists, which are pills that only last for 2 to 3 days in the body. There are 2
gepants for acute care and 2 for the prevention of migraine. The first gepant approved
by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for acute care was ubrogepant
(Ubrelvy), which comes in 2 sizes, 50 mg or 100 mg tablets. I sometimes start with 50
mg, but for the more difficult migraine patient, I will start with 100 mg. If the medicine is
not doing a complete job within 2 hours, the patient may take a second dose, up to 200
mg. Some adverse events may include nausea or slight drowsiness. The patient should
avoid certain medicines such as antifungal medicines (eg, ketoconazole, itraconazole)
and certain antibiotics like clarithromycin. 
 
Another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec), comes in only 1 size, a 75-mg oral disintegrating
tablet, which can be used both for acute care of migraine and for prevention. Patients
can take a tablet as soon as their migraine attack begins, and they are not to repeat it
that day. If the headache does not go away in 2 hours, I want them to then take a triptan
and an anti-inflammatory drug (there is no contraindication to mix these drugs). I want
them to try it at least 1 more time, encouraging patients to take it early, right at the start
of the headache. If the medicine is still not working by the second or third time, they
should stop using it. Preventively, patients take 75 mg every other day, which can be
quite effective. Side effects are slight nausea and some abdominal pain or dyspepsia.
 
A third gepant is atogepant (Qulipta), which is only for migraine prevention. It comes in
10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg and is taken once every day as a preventive. It can cause
some drowsiness, constipation, and nausea.
 
Are there any other acute care drugs you recommend if triptans are not working?
Yes, there is another drug class called the ditans. These medications work very well but
have more adverse events associated with them than I like. A higher percentage of

patients seem to be pain-free in 2 hours when using a ditan; however, the only one
available, lasmiditan (Reyvow), has never been studied against a gepant, so I cannot
say if one is better than the other. Lasmitidan works similarly to a triptan by stimulating
serotonin 1F receptors but does not constrict blood vessels. Up to 15% of patients have
dizziness and up to 7% have drowsiness, so patients should not drive within 8 hours
after taking lasmiditan. This medication is available in 2 sizes, 100 mg and 200 mg. I
usually give patients a 200-mg dose, which is good enough for 24 hours. Ditans are a
Schedule V drug, meaning some patients might take more than they should because it
makes them feel good. It can be a challenging drug to get, but it is an excellent acute
care drug when none of the mentioned adverse events occur.
 
Which preventive drugs do you tend to prescribe your patients for migraine since
triptans are not preventive?
For many years, we have used some of the older preventives. Antidepressants can be
an option for preventive treatment of migraine. Amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, is
a pretty good medicine. However, it has a lot of adverse events associated with it,
including dry mouth, weight gain, and drowsiness, so patients who take this at night
often sleep better. The dose is 10 mg to 50 mg taken before bed. This drug is often
used, but I would not say I like to prescribe it as much as other medications, even
though amitriptyline is effective and likely to work by affecting the level of serotonin and
other chemicals in the brain. There is little evidence that other classes of
antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and
norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, are effective for migraine prevention. Adverse
effects may include weight gain, fatigue, constipation, and dry mouth, making it difficult
for a patient to stick with treatment.

Beta blockers are another preventive medication option for migraine. Beta blockers are
best known as a medical treatment for cardiovascular conditions, such as hypertension,
stable or unstable angina, and congestive heart failure. Beta blockers prevent the stress
hormone adrenaline (epinephrine) from binding to beta receptors, slowing heart rate
and lowering blood pressure. A commonly used beta blocker is propranolol (Inderal),

which also comes in a long-acting preparation. Doses range from 60 mg to 180
mg. Other beta blockers effective for migraine prevention include metoprolol, nadolol,
and atenolol.
 
Many of my patients are young, healthy females who like to exercise. Most report that
their heart rate is slow, they get short of breath, and they cannot exercise as effectively
while on a beta blocker. It also takes about 2 months until this medication starts
working. Patients may feel as if they are having too many adverse events, so I start
them on a very low dose and build it up gradually for a month and see how they are
feeling.
 
Epilepsy medicines can also be used to prevent migraine. There are 2 common
epilepsy medications. Topiramate (Topamax) doses can range from 75 mg to 100 mg
and are sometimes higher. Topiramate is a good medicine, but there are many potential
adverse events: tingling in the extremities, difficulty finding words when speaking,
confusion, raised eye pressure, and others. Divalproex sodium (Depakote) is another
popular medication, available in 500 mg to 1000 mg doses. This medicine can cause
some endocrine problems in women and can also damage the spinal cords of a fetus,
so this drug should not be taken during early pregnancy.
 
Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP are a strong preventive medication and a new
class of drugs that were first approved by the FDA in 2018. They are designed to
prevent episodic migraine (up to 14 headache days per month), chronic migraine (15 or
more headache days per month) and seem to work when a patient has medication
overuse headaches. CGRP is a neuropeptide involved in many body processes,
including blood pressure regulation, tissue repair, wound healing, and inflammation, and
is a potent vasodilator. When CGRP is released in the brain, it affects the trigeminal
nerve, increasing pain transmission and sensitivities to touch and temperature. CGRP
also causes inflammation and pain that happen during a migraine; it makes headache
pain worse and causes headaches to last longer.

Some CGRP inhibitors block CGRP from binding to CGRP receptors, a key contributor
to the trigeminal nerve pain and inflammation of migraine, while some grab the CGRP
and prevent it from activating the receptor. 

The 2 classes of these drugs are monoclonal antibodies against CGRP and small
molecule CGRP antagonists. Fortunately, CGRPs have long half-lives and work for 1 to
3 months. The CGRP monoclonal antibodies are large molecule drugs. There are 4
different types, and 2 of them are injected by the patient at home once a month. One
can be injected at home once a month or every 3 months. For the latter option, patients
need to triple up with 3 injections in one day, so they do not have to inject for 3 months.
The fourth CGRP is an intravenous infusion that can be administered in an infusion
center or at home. This one is more inconvenient, but it is a strong drug. The small
molecule CGRP antagonists are taken by mouth in pill form. All CGRPs have been
shown to decrease the number of headaches per month.
 
The main goal of preventive therapy is to lessen the impact of migraines on patients’
lives by reducing how often they occur, how severe they are, and how long they last.
Preventive therapy also decreases disability and improves patients’ functioning over
time. Preventive therapy can help keep the costs for migraine care down by reducing
the need for acute treatments and allowing the patient to keep working or taking care of
their kids. Furthermore, preventive medications can make acute migraine treatments
more effective and help avoid the overuse of acute medications.

The patient was given a diagnosis of sialadenosis (also known as sialosis), a noninflammatory, non-neoplastic enlargement of the parotid glands. It can often manifest as fatty degeneration of the parotid glands, which may be associated with underlying conditions such as hypertriglyceridemia, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.^1-3

Ultrasonography and a subsequent computed tomography with contrast demonstrated fatty hypertrophy of the parotid glands without any concerning parotid mass or enlarged cervical lymph nodes. No abnormalities of the ductal system (eg, stricture or obstruction with stone) were noted, so sialography and sialendoscopy were not indicated.

Evaluation for inflammatory, autoimmune, and granulomatous diseases was negative, including negative anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB antibodies and negative HIV screen. However, our patient had an elevated serum triglyceride level of 589 mg/dL (reference range, < 150 mg/dL), while serum total cholesterol was within the reference range (< 200 mg/dL). (Interestingly, his triglycerides were normal a year earlier.) The patient’s A1c level was normal.

The differential diagnosis for this patient included Sjögren syndrome, abscess, viral infection (eg, mumps, HIV sialopathy), Kimura disease, sarcoidosis, masseter hypertrophy, and tumors of the parotid gland (eg, Warthin tumor and pleomorphic adenoma). Drug-induced sialadenitis was another possibility, as several drugs may be associated with salivary gland enlargement.⁴ However, no association was found for our patient.

Primary management is focused on treating the underlying disorder. The application of heat, massage, and sialagogues (eg, pilocarpine 5 mg orally tid) can be used to stimulate salivation, which may help reduce the swelling. Bilateral parotid gland swelling in patients with increased triglyceride levels often resolves after treatment of hypertriglyceridemia.^3,5 Less common modalities include botulinum neurotoxin injection, tympanic neurectomy, and parotidectomy.⁶

The treatment plan for this patient included aggressive dietary modification and increasing his current dosage of atorvastatin from 20 mg to 80 mg at bedtime. Increasing the dosage of statin was preferred over adding another agent (such as fibrates) to decrease the risk of myopathy. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy may be considered if the swelling does not resolve after correction of lipid abnormalities, which can take between 6 months and 3 years.³

‌

Photo courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD. Text courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD, Assistant Professor, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The patient was given a diagnosis of sialadenosis (also known as sialosis), a noninflammatory, non-neoplastic enlargement of the parotid glands. It can often manifest as fatty degeneration of the parotid glands, which may be associated with underlying conditions such as hypertriglyceridemia, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.^1-3

Ultrasonography and a subsequent computed tomography with contrast demonstrated fatty hypertrophy of the parotid glands without any concerning parotid mass or enlarged cervical lymph nodes. No abnormalities of the ductal system (eg, stricture or obstruction with stone) were noted, so sialography and sialendoscopy were not indicated.

Evaluation for inflammatory, autoimmune, and granulomatous diseases was negative, including negative anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB antibodies and negative HIV screen. However, our patient had an elevated serum triglyceride level of 589 mg/dL (reference range, < 150 mg/dL), while serum total cholesterol was within the reference range (< 200 mg/dL). (Interestingly, his triglycerides were normal a year earlier.) The patient’s A1c level was normal.

The differential diagnosis for this patient included Sjögren syndrome, abscess, viral infection (eg, mumps, HIV sialopathy), Kimura disease, sarcoidosis, masseter hypertrophy, and tumors of the parotid gland (eg, Warthin tumor and pleomorphic adenoma). Drug-induced sialadenitis was another possibility, as several drugs may be associated with salivary gland enlargement.⁴ However, no association was found for our patient.

Primary management is focused on treating the underlying disorder. The application of heat, massage, and sialagogues (eg, pilocarpine 5 mg orally tid) can be used to stimulate salivation, which may help reduce the swelling. Bilateral parotid gland swelling in patients with increased triglyceride levels often resolves after treatment of hypertriglyceridemia.^3,5 Less common modalities include botulinum neurotoxin injection, tympanic neurectomy, and parotidectomy.⁶

The treatment plan for this patient included aggressive dietary modification and increasing his current dosage of atorvastatin from 20 mg to 80 mg at bedtime. Increasing the dosage of statin was preferred over adding another agent (such as fibrates) to decrease the risk of myopathy. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy may be considered if the swelling does not resolve after correction of lipid abnormalities, which can take between 6 months and 3 years.³

‌

Photo courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD. Text courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD, Assistant Professor, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The patient was given a diagnosis of sialadenosis (also known as sialosis), a noninflammatory, non-neoplastic enlargement of the parotid glands. It can often manifest as fatty degeneration of the parotid glands, which may be associated with underlying conditions such as hypertriglyceridemia, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.^1-3

Ultrasonography and a subsequent computed tomography with contrast demonstrated fatty hypertrophy of the parotid glands without any concerning parotid mass or enlarged cervical lymph nodes. No abnormalities of the ductal system (eg, stricture or obstruction with stone) were noted, so sialography and sialendoscopy were not indicated.

Evaluation for inflammatory, autoimmune, and granulomatous diseases was negative, including negative anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB antibodies and negative HIV screen. However, our patient had an elevated serum triglyceride level of 589 mg/dL (reference range, < 150 mg/dL), while serum total cholesterol was within the reference range (< 200 mg/dL). (Interestingly, his triglycerides were normal a year earlier.) The patient’s A1c level was normal.

The differential diagnosis for this patient included Sjögren syndrome, abscess, viral infection (eg, mumps, HIV sialopathy), Kimura disease, sarcoidosis, masseter hypertrophy, and tumors of the parotid gland (eg, Warthin tumor and pleomorphic adenoma). Drug-induced sialadenitis was another possibility, as several drugs may be associated with salivary gland enlargement.⁴ However, no association was found for our patient.

Primary management is focused on treating the underlying disorder. The application of heat, massage, and sialagogues (eg, pilocarpine 5 mg orally tid) can be used to stimulate salivation, which may help reduce the swelling. Bilateral parotid gland swelling in patients with increased triglyceride levels often resolves after treatment of hypertriglyceridemia.^3,5 Less common modalities include botulinum neurotoxin injection, tympanic neurectomy, and parotidectomy.⁶

The treatment plan for this patient included aggressive dietary modification and increasing his current dosage of atorvastatin from 20 mg to 80 mg at bedtime. Increasing the dosage of statin was preferred over adding another agent (such as fibrates) to decrease the risk of myopathy. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy may be considered if the swelling does not resolve after correction of lipid abnormalities, which can take between 6 months and 3 years.³

‌

Photo courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD. Text courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD, Assistant Professor, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriasis, the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic (GEPARD) questionnaire followed by a dermatological assessment can detect psoriatic arthritis (PsA) risk almost accurately, and entheseal ultrasound by dermatologists shows no additional benefits in this regard.

Major finding: PsA was diagnosed in 6 out of 40 patients, with a sensitivity of 100%; however, dermatologic ultrasound evaluation of the entheses alone was unable to confirm these findings. Of the remaining 34 patients with psoriasis, 8 were deemed by dermatologists as possibly having PsA based on the ultrasound examination although rheumatologists detected ultrasound abnormalities in only 3 patients.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 40 patients with psoriasis who completed the GEPARD questionnaire and subsequently underwent an assessment for PsA by a dermatologist and an ultrasound examination.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a conditional research grant from Rheumazentrum Erlangen-Nuremberg e.V. and AGJR Verbundprojekt. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bartsch V et al. Screening for psoriatic arthritis in dermatological settings—Are handheld ultrasound devices the gamechangers we hoped for? Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Nov 3). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead592

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriasis, the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic (GEPARD) questionnaire followed by a dermatological assessment can detect psoriatic arthritis (PsA) risk almost accurately, and entheseal ultrasound by dermatologists shows no additional benefits in this regard.

Major finding: PsA was diagnosed in 6 out of 40 patients, with a sensitivity of 100%; however, dermatologic ultrasound evaluation of the entheses alone was unable to confirm these findings. Of the remaining 34 patients with psoriasis, 8 were deemed by dermatologists as possibly having PsA based on the ultrasound examination although rheumatologists detected ultrasound abnormalities in only 3 patients.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 40 patients with psoriasis who completed the GEPARD questionnaire and subsequently underwent an assessment for PsA by a dermatologist and an ultrasound examination.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a conditional research grant from Rheumazentrum Erlangen-Nuremberg e.V. and AGJR Verbundprojekt. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bartsch V et al. Screening for psoriatic arthritis in dermatological settings—Are handheld ultrasound devices the gamechangers we hoped for? Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Nov 3). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead592

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriasis, the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic (GEPARD) questionnaire followed by a dermatological assessment can detect psoriatic arthritis (PsA) risk almost accurately, and entheseal ultrasound by dermatologists shows no additional benefits in this regard.

Major finding: PsA was diagnosed in 6 out of 40 patients, with a sensitivity of 100%; however, dermatologic ultrasound evaluation of the entheses alone was unable to confirm these findings. Of the remaining 34 patients with psoriasis, 8 were deemed by dermatologists as possibly having PsA based on the ultrasound examination although rheumatologists detected ultrasound abnormalities in only 3 patients.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 40 patients with psoriasis who completed the GEPARD questionnaire and subsequently underwent an assessment for PsA by a dermatologist and an ultrasound examination.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a conditional research grant from Rheumazentrum Erlangen-Nuremberg e.V. and AGJR Verbundprojekt. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bartsch V et al. Screening for psoriatic arthritis in dermatological settings—Are handheld ultrasound devices the gamechangers we hoped for? Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Nov 3). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead592

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), except those with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (≥10 mg/L) and radiographic sacroiliac involvement, generally had a very low likelihood of developing syndesmophytes.

Major finding: At 2 years of follow-up, the majority (~90%) of patients showed no new syndesmophyte development, with syndesmophyte development being reported in only 11 patients. The probability of developing vs not developing syndesmophytes increased numerically by 3 and 14 times in patients with radiographic sacroiliitis and in those with radiographic sacroiliitis plus elevated CRP levels, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the data of 150 patients with PsA from the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) trial who had baseline and 2-year follow-up radiographs available.

Disclosures: The BEPAS trial was funded by MSD Belgium. Some authors declared receiving consultancy fees, speaker fees, or research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including MSD.

Source: de Hooge M et al. Specific descriptions of axial involvement are associated with radiographic damage development after 2 years in psoriatic arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 (Nov 2). doi: 10.1136/ard-2023-224501

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), except those with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (≥10 mg/L) and radiographic sacroiliac involvement, generally had a very low likelihood of developing syndesmophytes.

Major finding: At 2 years of follow-up, the majority (~90%) of patients showed no new syndesmophyte development, with syndesmophyte development being reported in only 11 patients. The probability of developing vs not developing syndesmophytes increased numerically by 3 and 14 times in patients with radiographic sacroiliitis and in those with radiographic sacroiliitis plus elevated CRP levels, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the data of 150 patients with PsA from the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) trial who had baseline and 2-year follow-up radiographs available.

Disclosures: The BEPAS trial was funded by MSD Belgium. Some authors declared receiving consultancy fees, speaker fees, or research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including MSD.

Source: de Hooge M et al. Specific descriptions of axial involvement are associated with radiographic damage development after 2 years in psoriatic arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 (Nov 2). doi: 10.1136/ard-2023-224501

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), except those with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (≥10 mg/L) and radiographic sacroiliac involvement, generally had a very low likelihood of developing syndesmophytes.

Major finding: At 2 years of follow-up, the majority (~90%) of patients showed no new syndesmophyte development, with syndesmophyte development being reported in only 11 patients. The probability of developing vs not developing syndesmophytes increased numerically by 3 and 14 times in patients with radiographic sacroiliitis and in those with radiographic sacroiliitis plus elevated CRP levels, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of the data of 150 patients with PsA from the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) trial who had baseline and 2-year follow-up radiographs available.

Disclosures: The BEPAS trial was funded by MSD Belgium. Some authors declared receiving consultancy fees, speaker fees, or research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including MSD.

Source: de Hooge M et al. Specific descriptions of axial involvement are associated with radiographic damage development after 2 years in psoriatic arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 (Nov 2). doi: 10.1136/ard-2023-224501

Key clinical point: Improvement in the Disease Activity Index in PsA (DAPSA) scores as early as week 8 was associated with a lower progression of structural joint damage at 2 years in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were treated with guselkumab.

Major finding: A greater improvement in DAPSA scores as early as week 8 (parameter estimate [β] −0.03, P = .0096) and the achievement of DAPSA low disease activity at week 8 (least squares mean difference −1.44; P = .0151) were associated with a significantly lower radiographic progression of joint damage through week 100.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 449 biologic-naive patients with PsA from the DISCOVER-2 trial who received 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks.

Disclosures: The DISCOVER-2 trial was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Five authors declared being employees of Janssen or owning stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Earlier clinical response predicts low rates of radiographic progression in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis receiving guselkumab treatment. Clin Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 3). doi: 10.1007/s10067-023-06745-y

Key clinical point: Improvement in the Disease Activity Index in PsA (DAPSA) scores as early as week 8 was associated with a lower progression of structural joint damage at 2 years in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were treated with guselkumab.

Major finding: A greater improvement in DAPSA scores as early as week 8 (parameter estimate [β] −0.03, P = .0096) and the achievement of DAPSA low disease activity at week 8 (least squares mean difference −1.44; P = .0151) were associated with a significantly lower radiographic progression of joint damage through week 100.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 449 biologic-naive patients with PsA from the DISCOVER-2 trial who received 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks.

Disclosures: The DISCOVER-2 trial was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Five authors declared being employees of Janssen or owning stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Earlier clinical response predicts low rates of radiographic progression in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis receiving guselkumab treatment. Clin Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 3). doi: 10.1007/s10067-023-06745-y

Key clinical point: Improvement in the Disease Activity Index in PsA (DAPSA) scores as early as week 8 was associated with a lower progression of structural joint damage at 2 years in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were treated with guselkumab.

Major finding: A greater improvement in DAPSA scores as early as week 8 (parameter estimate [β] −0.03, P = .0096) and the achievement of DAPSA low disease activity at week 8 (least squares mean difference −1.44; P = .0151) were associated with a significantly lower radiographic progression of joint damage through week 100.

Study details: This post hoc analysis included 449 biologic-naive patients with PsA from the DISCOVER-2 trial who received 100 mg guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks.

Disclosures: The DISCOVER-2 trial was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Five authors declared being employees of Janssen or owning stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. The other authors declared ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Earlier clinical response predicts low rates of radiographic progression in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis receiving guselkumab treatment. Clin Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 3). doi: 10.1007/s10067-023-06745-y