User login
Are headache clinical trials representative of the general patient population?
DENVER – In a debate over whether headache trials are representative of patients, one neurologist declared that they tend to leave out a variety of subjects with many types of headaches – the young, the old, the pregnant, and those without migraines, among others. But her counterpart defended migraine trials in particular, arguing that they’re evolving to become more valuable as researchers address their limitations.
At the core of the debate at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society were sharp divisions over how much the limitations of headache clinical trials matter. Both neurologists – Jan Brandes, MD, of Nashville (Tenn.) Neuroscience Group, and Amy Gelfand, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, agree that they exist. But they diverged on how much they matter.
Exclusion/inclusion criteria are good
Dr. Brandes argued that randomized controlled trials “remain the single best study design,” and she said migraine headache trials have improved over the past couple of decades.
Eligibility criteria, for example, have expanded to allow patients with more subtypes of migraines to participate, she said. “Another change has been the establishment of guidelines or inclusion criteria that allow patients who have stable and treated hypertension, stable depression, and stable anxiety disorders that are controlled and treated and not interfering with the disease you’re studying.”
In essence, she said, “the exclusion/inclusion criteria are good.”
It’s also a positive change that longer patient-reported outcomes are included in trials, she said.
Exclusion/inclusion criteria are too restrictive
But Dr. Gelfand criticized the inclusion criteria in migraine trials, noting it includes “a lot of amazing complexity.” Trials often will limit participation to subjects aged 18-65, even though people have high rates of headaches, she said, and they frequently overrepresent men. Pregnant and lactating women are often omitted, too, even if a trial is examining a behavioral intervention. In some cases, lactating women may be breastfeeding for a year or two, she noted.
“The vast majority of births in the United States, 92%, are to females who are between the ages of 20 and 39. That is also the age range where migraine is most prevalent,” she said. Yes, certain new agents shouldn’t be tested for the first time in pregnant women because of the risk, she said, “but we need to grapple with the fact that migraine is affecting people who are also going to be pregnant and lactating.”
Many other criteria limit the subjects in headache trials, she said. The studies are “almost exclusively” of drugs for migraines, leaving out many people with other types such as adolescents with new persistent headaches. “Where are the trials for them?” she asked.
Other groups that are left out include those whose headaches that are due to a head injury, a viral infection such as COVID-19, or even vaccination against COVID-19, she said. “There are an infinite number of questions here that we are currently not even attempting to answer.”
Non-Whites are also poorly represented in trials, she said, and studies often don’t include data about non-Whites. “Race data exists. Where do we get off not even reporting it?”
Room for improvement
For her part, Dr. Brandes said less-common headache disorders are best studied in pragmatic trials until they can be better understood. “We need to understand pathophysiology better for some of these other disorders, particularly things like continuous headache and posttraumatic headache. Then we can begin to expand that.”
She added that randomized clinical trials are now underway regarding secondary headache related to COVID-19.
Dr. Brandes did not report disclosures. Dr. Gelfand had no disclosures.
DENVER – In a debate over whether headache trials are representative of patients, one neurologist declared that they tend to leave out a variety of subjects with many types of headaches – the young, the old, the pregnant, and those without migraines, among others. But her counterpart defended migraine trials in particular, arguing that they’re evolving to become more valuable as researchers address their limitations.
At the core of the debate at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society were sharp divisions over how much the limitations of headache clinical trials matter. Both neurologists – Jan Brandes, MD, of Nashville (Tenn.) Neuroscience Group, and Amy Gelfand, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, agree that they exist. But they diverged on how much they matter.
Exclusion/inclusion criteria are good
Dr. Brandes argued that randomized controlled trials “remain the single best study design,” and she said migraine headache trials have improved over the past couple of decades.
Eligibility criteria, for example, have expanded to allow patients with more subtypes of migraines to participate, she said. “Another change has been the establishment of guidelines or inclusion criteria that allow patients who have stable and treated hypertension, stable depression, and stable anxiety disorders that are controlled and treated and not interfering with the disease you’re studying.”
In essence, she said, “the exclusion/inclusion criteria are good.”
It’s also a positive change that longer patient-reported outcomes are included in trials, she said.
Exclusion/inclusion criteria are too restrictive
But Dr. Gelfand criticized the inclusion criteria in migraine trials, noting it includes “a lot of amazing complexity.” Trials often will limit participation to subjects aged 18-65, even though people have high rates of headaches, she said, and they frequently overrepresent men. Pregnant and lactating women are often omitted, too, even if a trial is examining a behavioral intervention. In some cases, lactating women may be breastfeeding for a year or two, she noted.
“The vast majority of births in the United States, 92%, are to females who are between the ages of 20 and 39. That is also the age range where migraine is most prevalent,” she said. Yes, certain new agents shouldn’t be tested for the first time in pregnant women because of the risk, she said, “but we need to grapple with the fact that migraine is affecting people who are also going to be pregnant and lactating.”
Many other criteria limit the subjects in headache trials, she said. The studies are “almost exclusively” of drugs for migraines, leaving out many people with other types such as adolescents with new persistent headaches. “Where are the trials for them?” she asked.
Other groups that are left out include those whose headaches that are due to a head injury, a viral infection such as COVID-19, or even vaccination against COVID-19, she said. “There are an infinite number of questions here that we are currently not even attempting to answer.”
Non-Whites are also poorly represented in trials, she said, and studies often don’t include data about non-Whites. “Race data exists. Where do we get off not even reporting it?”
Room for improvement
For her part, Dr. Brandes said less-common headache disorders are best studied in pragmatic trials until they can be better understood. “We need to understand pathophysiology better for some of these other disorders, particularly things like continuous headache and posttraumatic headache. Then we can begin to expand that.”
She added that randomized clinical trials are now underway regarding secondary headache related to COVID-19.
Dr. Brandes did not report disclosures. Dr. Gelfand had no disclosures.
DENVER – In a debate over whether headache trials are representative of patients, one neurologist declared that they tend to leave out a variety of subjects with many types of headaches – the young, the old, the pregnant, and those without migraines, among others. But her counterpart defended migraine trials in particular, arguing that they’re evolving to become more valuable as researchers address their limitations.
At the core of the debate at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society were sharp divisions over how much the limitations of headache clinical trials matter. Both neurologists – Jan Brandes, MD, of Nashville (Tenn.) Neuroscience Group, and Amy Gelfand, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, agree that they exist. But they diverged on how much they matter.
Exclusion/inclusion criteria are good
Dr. Brandes argued that randomized controlled trials “remain the single best study design,” and she said migraine headache trials have improved over the past couple of decades.
Eligibility criteria, for example, have expanded to allow patients with more subtypes of migraines to participate, she said. “Another change has been the establishment of guidelines or inclusion criteria that allow patients who have stable and treated hypertension, stable depression, and stable anxiety disorders that are controlled and treated and not interfering with the disease you’re studying.”
In essence, she said, “the exclusion/inclusion criteria are good.”
It’s also a positive change that longer patient-reported outcomes are included in trials, she said.
Exclusion/inclusion criteria are too restrictive
But Dr. Gelfand criticized the inclusion criteria in migraine trials, noting it includes “a lot of amazing complexity.” Trials often will limit participation to subjects aged 18-65, even though people have high rates of headaches, she said, and they frequently overrepresent men. Pregnant and lactating women are often omitted, too, even if a trial is examining a behavioral intervention. In some cases, lactating women may be breastfeeding for a year or two, she noted.
“The vast majority of births in the United States, 92%, are to females who are between the ages of 20 and 39. That is also the age range where migraine is most prevalent,” she said. Yes, certain new agents shouldn’t be tested for the first time in pregnant women because of the risk, she said, “but we need to grapple with the fact that migraine is affecting people who are also going to be pregnant and lactating.”
Many other criteria limit the subjects in headache trials, she said. The studies are “almost exclusively” of drugs for migraines, leaving out many people with other types such as adolescents with new persistent headaches. “Where are the trials for them?” she asked.
Other groups that are left out include those whose headaches that are due to a head injury, a viral infection such as COVID-19, or even vaccination against COVID-19, she said. “There are an infinite number of questions here that we are currently not even attempting to answer.”
Non-Whites are also poorly represented in trials, she said, and studies often don’t include data about non-Whites. “Race data exists. Where do we get off not even reporting it?”
Room for improvement
For her part, Dr. Brandes said less-common headache disorders are best studied in pragmatic trials until they can be better understood. “We need to understand pathophysiology better for some of these other disorders, particularly things like continuous headache and posttraumatic headache. Then we can begin to expand that.”
She added that randomized clinical trials are now underway regarding secondary headache related to COVID-19.
Dr. Brandes did not report disclosures. Dr. Gelfand had no disclosures.
AT AHS 2022
Promising new tool for better migraine management in primary care
, research suggests.
Early results from a small pilot study showed that the tool, essentially a medical record “best-practice alert,” reduces specialist referrals and MRI studies.
The idea behind the tool is to give primary care physicians “fingertip access” to prompts on patients’ electronic health record, leading to best migraine management and treatment, said coinvestigator, Scott M. Friedenberg, MD, vice chair of clinical practice, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pa.
When clinicians enter a headache diagnosis into a patient’s EHR, a pop-up asks a handful of questions and “prompts them with the right medications so if they just click a button, they can order the medications straight away,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Fewer referrals, MRI testing
Researchers reviewed charts for 693 general neurology referrals. About 20% of the patients were referred for headache. In about 80% of these cases, the final diagnosis was migraine and/or chronic daily headache.
The physicians had documented criteria for identifying migraine, such as sensitivity to light, nausea, and missed social activity or work, in fewer than 1% of cases. There’s roughly an 80% chance that if a headache meets two of these three criteria, it is a migraine, Dr. Friedenberg noted.
About 60% of the participants with headache were referred with no treatment trial. About 20% were referred after having tried two medicines, and 30% were referred after trying one medicine.
“In many cases, we’re being asked to evaluate people with primary headache or uncomplicated headache that has not been treated,” said Dr. Friedenberg.
The investigators developed the tool, and its most recent iteration was tested by 10 physicians at two sites for 3 months. These doctors did not receive education on headache, they were just taught how to use the tool.
Results showed that referrals for neurology consults dropped 77% and MRI ordering dropped 35% after use of the tool. This translated into a savings of $192,000.
However, using the tool didn’t significantly affect prescribing habits of the physicians.
Migraine frequently undertreated
“When you drill it down, the only thing that changed were medications they were comfortable with, so they increased steroids and nonsteroidal prescribing, but preventives didn’t change, narcotics didn’t change, and CGRP [calcitonin gene-related peptide] inhibitors didn’t change,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
Although believing patients are “not bad enough to treat” might help explain why clinicians did not change prescribing habits, the reality is that many patients have migraine and should be treated, he added.
Dr. Friedenberg pointed out that previous research suggests that 60% or more of patients with a primary headache or migraine are undertreated.
The tool should increase awareness about, and comfort level with, diagnosing and treating migraine among primary care doctors, he noted. “We hope it will make it easier for them to do the right thing and have neurology as a readily available partner,” said Dr. Friedenberg.
“Primary care doctors are incredibly busy and incredibly pressured, and anything you can do to help facilitate that is a positive,” he added.
The researchers now plan to train pharmacists to comanage headache along with primary care doctors, as is done, for example, for patients with diabetes. This should result in a reduction in physician burden, said Dr. Friedenberg.
The next step is to conduct a larger study at the 38 sites in the Geisinger health complex. Half the sites will use the new tool, and the other half will continue to use their current headache management process.
“The study will compare everything from MRI ordering to neurology referrals and prescribing, how often patients go to the emergency department, how often they have a clinic visit, whether the provider is satisfied with the tool, and if the patient’s headaches are getting better,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
Lessons for clinical practice
Jessica Ailani, MD, director at MedStar Georgetown Headache Center and associate professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University, cochaired the session in which the research was presented and called the project “really fantastic.”
The study offers “many lessons” for clinical practice and showed that the tool was effective in improving diagnosis of migraine, said Dr. Ailani, who is also secretary of the American Headache Society.
“There’s a long wait time to see specialists, and most migraine can be diagnosed and basic management can be done by primary care physicians,” she said.
“The next step would be to work on a way to improve prescriptions of migraine-specific treatments,” she added.
Dr. Ailani noted that the AHS would be keen to find ways to engage in “collaborative work” with the investigators.
The investigators and Dr. Ailani reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, research suggests.
Early results from a small pilot study showed that the tool, essentially a medical record “best-practice alert,” reduces specialist referrals and MRI studies.
The idea behind the tool is to give primary care physicians “fingertip access” to prompts on patients’ electronic health record, leading to best migraine management and treatment, said coinvestigator, Scott M. Friedenberg, MD, vice chair of clinical practice, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pa.
When clinicians enter a headache diagnosis into a patient’s EHR, a pop-up asks a handful of questions and “prompts them with the right medications so if they just click a button, they can order the medications straight away,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Fewer referrals, MRI testing
Researchers reviewed charts for 693 general neurology referrals. About 20% of the patients were referred for headache. In about 80% of these cases, the final diagnosis was migraine and/or chronic daily headache.
The physicians had documented criteria for identifying migraine, such as sensitivity to light, nausea, and missed social activity or work, in fewer than 1% of cases. There’s roughly an 80% chance that if a headache meets two of these three criteria, it is a migraine, Dr. Friedenberg noted.
About 60% of the participants with headache were referred with no treatment trial. About 20% were referred after having tried two medicines, and 30% were referred after trying one medicine.
“In many cases, we’re being asked to evaluate people with primary headache or uncomplicated headache that has not been treated,” said Dr. Friedenberg.
The investigators developed the tool, and its most recent iteration was tested by 10 physicians at two sites for 3 months. These doctors did not receive education on headache, they were just taught how to use the tool.
Results showed that referrals for neurology consults dropped 77% and MRI ordering dropped 35% after use of the tool. This translated into a savings of $192,000.
However, using the tool didn’t significantly affect prescribing habits of the physicians.
Migraine frequently undertreated
“When you drill it down, the only thing that changed were medications they were comfortable with, so they increased steroids and nonsteroidal prescribing, but preventives didn’t change, narcotics didn’t change, and CGRP [calcitonin gene-related peptide] inhibitors didn’t change,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
Although believing patients are “not bad enough to treat” might help explain why clinicians did not change prescribing habits, the reality is that many patients have migraine and should be treated, he added.
Dr. Friedenberg pointed out that previous research suggests that 60% or more of patients with a primary headache or migraine are undertreated.
The tool should increase awareness about, and comfort level with, diagnosing and treating migraine among primary care doctors, he noted. “We hope it will make it easier for them to do the right thing and have neurology as a readily available partner,” said Dr. Friedenberg.
“Primary care doctors are incredibly busy and incredibly pressured, and anything you can do to help facilitate that is a positive,” he added.
The researchers now plan to train pharmacists to comanage headache along with primary care doctors, as is done, for example, for patients with diabetes. This should result in a reduction in physician burden, said Dr. Friedenberg.
The next step is to conduct a larger study at the 38 sites in the Geisinger health complex. Half the sites will use the new tool, and the other half will continue to use their current headache management process.
“The study will compare everything from MRI ordering to neurology referrals and prescribing, how often patients go to the emergency department, how often they have a clinic visit, whether the provider is satisfied with the tool, and if the patient’s headaches are getting better,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
Lessons for clinical practice
Jessica Ailani, MD, director at MedStar Georgetown Headache Center and associate professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University, cochaired the session in which the research was presented and called the project “really fantastic.”
The study offers “many lessons” for clinical practice and showed that the tool was effective in improving diagnosis of migraine, said Dr. Ailani, who is also secretary of the American Headache Society.
“There’s a long wait time to see specialists, and most migraine can be diagnosed and basic management can be done by primary care physicians,” she said.
“The next step would be to work on a way to improve prescriptions of migraine-specific treatments,” she added.
Dr. Ailani noted that the AHS would be keen to find ways to engage in “collaborative work” with the investigators.
The investigators and Dr. Ailani reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, research suggests.
Early results from a small pilot study showed that the tool, essentially a medical record “best-practice alert,” reduces specialist referrals and MRI studies.
The idea behind the tool is to give primary care physicians “fingertip access” to prompts on patients’ electronic health record, leading to best migraine management and treatment, said coinvestigator, Scott M. Friedenberg, MD, vice chair of clinical practice, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pa.
When clinicians enter a headache diagnosis into a patient’s EHR, a pop-up asks a handful of questions and “prompts them with the right medications so if they just click a button, they can order the medications straight away,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Fewer referrals, MRI testing
Researchers reviewed charts for 693 general neurology referrals. About 20% of the patients were referred for headache. In about 80% of these cases, the final diagnosis was migraine and/or chronic daily headache.
The physicians had documented criteria for identifying migraine, such as sensitivity to light, nausea, and missed social activity or work, in fewer than 1% of cases. There’s roughly an 80% chance that if a headache meets two of these three criteria, it is a migraine, Dr. Friedenberg noted.
About 60% of the participants with headache were referred with no treatment trial. About 20% were referred after having tried two medicines, and 30% were referred after trying one medicine.
“In many cases, we’re being asked to evaluate people with primary headache or uncomplicated headache that has not been treated,” said Dr. Friedenberg.
The investigators developed the tool, and its most recent iteration was tested by 10 physicians at two sites for 3 months. These doctors did not receive education on headache, they were just taught how to use the tool.
Results showed that referrals for neurology consults dropped 77% and MRI ordering dropped 35% after use of the tool. This translated into a savings of $192,000.
However, using the tool didn’t significantly affect prescribing habits of the physicians.
Migraine frequently undertreated
“When you drill it down, the only thing that changed were medications they were comfortable with, so they increased steroids and nonsteroidal prescribing, but preventives didn’t change, narcotics didn’t change, and CGRP [calcitonin gene-related peptide] inhibitors didn’t change,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
Although believing patients are “not bad enough to treat” might help explain why clinicians did not change prescribing habits, the reality is that many patients have migraine and should be treated, he added.
Dr. Friedenberg pointed out that previous research suggests that 60% or more of patients with a primary headache or migraine are undertreated.
The tool should increase awareness about, and comfort level with, diagnosing and treating migraine among primary care doctors, he noted. “We hope it will make it easier for them to do the right thing and have neurology as a readily available partner,” said Dr. Friedenberg.
“Primary care doctors are incredibly busy and incredibly pressured, and anything you can do to help facilitate that is a positive,” he added.
The researchers now plan to train pharmacists to comanage headache along with primary care doctors, as is done, for example, for patients with diabetes. This should result in a reduction in physician burden, said Dr. Friedenberg.
The next step is to conduct a larger study at the 38 sites in the Geisinger health complex. Half the sites will use the new tool, and the other half will continue to use their current headache management process.
“The study will compare everything from MRI ordering to neurology referrals and prescribing, how often patients go to the emergency department, how often they have a clinic visit, whether the provider is satisfied with the tool, and if the patient’s headaches are getting better,” Dr. Friedenberg said.
Lessons for clinical practice
Jessica Ailani, MD, director at MedStar Georgetown Headache Center and associate professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University, cochaired the session in which the research was presented and called the project “really fantastic.”
The study offers “many lessons” for clinical practice and showed that the tool was effective in improving diagnosis of migraine, said Dr. Ailani, who is also secretary of the American Headache Society.
“There’s a long wait time to see specialists, and most migraine can be diagnosed and basic management can be done by primary care physicians,” she said.
“The next step would be to work on a way to improve prescriptions of migraine-specific treatments,” she added.
Dr. Ailani noted that the AHS would be keen to find ways to engage in “collaborative work” with the investigators.
The investigators and Dr. Ailani reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2022
Twin study offers new insight into genetics of migraine
DENVER – , even though testosterone is thought to be protective. The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, also hint at a possible role played by the prenatal environment.
The study marks the first time a large-scale twin dataset has been used to assess sex differences in underlying genetic factors of migraine, lead author Morgan Fitzgerald, a senior research associate at the University of California at San Diego, said in a presentation at the conference. The findings were previously published in Frontiers in Pain Research.
More than genetics
The researchers analyzed data regarding 51,872 participants in the Swedish Twin Registry. According to Dr. Fitzgerald, the database is ideal because it is large and includes both genders.
Per the database, female twins were more likely to have migraines without aura than were male twins (17.6% vs. 5.5%, respectively), reflecting global numbers that suggest 18% of females and 6% of males have migraines each year.
To better understand heritability, the researchers compared identical twins with fraternal twins, and looked for gender-related correlations, Dr. Fitzgerald said.
One analysis suggests that migraine is equally heritable in men and women with a broad sense heritability of 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.50). However, another analysis model provides evidence “that there are differences in the underlying genetic factors contributing to migraine across males and females,” she said.
Unexpectedly, the researchers also found that females with male twins were more likely to have migraines than were those with female twins (odds ratio, 1.51, 95% CI, 1.26-1.81) even though males are less affected by the headaches.
“These results suggest that the prominent sex difference in migraine prevalence is not entirely accounted for by genetic factors, while demonstrating that masculinization of the prenatal environment may increase migraine risk for females,” the authors wrote in the published study. “This effect points to a potential prenatal neuroendocrine factor in the development of migraine.”
Probing the migraine gender gap
Commenting on the research, University of Texas at Dallas neuroscientist and headache researcher Gregory Dussor, PhD, said the new study is “a very unique approach to address the question of nature versus nurture in migraine. It was well designed and used robust statistical modeling.”
As for the findings, “the conclusion that genetics do not explain sex differences in migraine risk by themselves is not surprising given how big of a role hormones in later life are likely to play in the disease and how many factors there are that can influence hormone levels,” he said.
“On the other hand, the surprising part of the findings was that the presence of a male co-twin increases risk of migraine in females. I would have expected to see the opposite, given the lower prevalence of migraine in males and the seemingly protective role that male hormones can play in migraine.”
Overall, the study adds to data implicating environment and hormones in the migraine gender gap, he said. “One thing I wonder from this study is what influence a female co-twin growing up with a male co-twin can have on migraine susceptibility. That female co-twin may end up with a very different set of childhood experiences than if she was with another female co-twin. Twins generally spend an enormous amount of time together and the same sex versus opposite sex experiences are likely to be quite different. This may have an influence on migraine later in life.”
As for the value of the study in terms of diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of migraine, Dr. Dussor said, “it’s possible it could help to identify risk factors for higher migraine susceptibility but it’s far too early to know how this could be used.”
The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Dussor disclosed an NIH-funded grant to study the role of the hormone prolactin in preclinical migraine models.
DENVER – , even though testosterone is thought to be protective. The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, also hint at a possible role played by the prenatal environment.
The study marks the first time a large-scale twin dataset has been used to assess sex differences in underlying genetic factors of migraine, lead author Morgan Fitzgerald, a senior research associate at the University of California at San Diego, said in a presentation at the conference. The findings were previously published in Frontiers in Pain Research.
More than genetics
The researchers analyzed data regarding 51,872 participants in the Swedish Twin Registry. According to Dr. Fitzgerald, the database is ideal because it is large and includes both genders.
Per the database, female twins were more likely to have migraines without aura than were male twins (17.6% vs. 5.5%, respectively), reflecting global numbers that suggest 18% of females and 6% of males have migraines each year.
To better understand heritability, the researchers compared identical twins with fraternal twins, and looked for gender-related correlations, Dr. Fitzgerald said.
One analysis suggests that migraine is equally heritable in men and women with a broad sense heritability of 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.50). However, another analysis model provides evidence “that there are differences in the underlying genetic factors contributing to migraine across males and females,” she said.
Unexpectedly, the researchers also found that females with male twins were more likely to have migraines than were those with female twins (odds ratio, 1.51, 95% CI, 1.26-1.81) even though males are less affected by the headaches.
“These results suggest that the prominent sex difference in migraine prevalence is not entirely accounted for by genetic factors, while demonstrating that masculinization of the prenatal environment may increase migraine risk for females,” the authors wrote in the published study. “This effect points to a potential prenatal neuroendocrine factor in the development of migraine.”
Probing the migraine gender gap
Commenting on the research, University of Texas at Dallas neuroscientist and headache researcher Gregory Dussor, PhD, said the new study is “a very unique approach to address the question of nature versus nurture in migraine. It was well designed and used robust statistical modeling.”
As for the findings, “the conclusion that genetics do not explain sex differences in migraine risk by themselves is not surprising given how big of a role hormones in later life are likely to play in the disease and how many factors there are that can influence hormone levels,” he said.
“On the other hand, the surprising part of the findings was that the presence of a male co-twin increases risk of migraine in females. I would have expected to see the opposite, given the lower prevalence of migraine in males and the seemingly protective role that male hormones can play in migraine.”
Overall, the study adds to data implicating environment and hormones in the migraine gender gap, he said. “One thing I wonder from this study is what influence a female co-twin growing up with a male co-twin can have on migraine susceptibility. That female co-twin may end up with a very different set of childhood experiences than if she was with another female co-twin. Twins generally spend an enormous amount of time together and the same sex versus opposite sex experiences are likely to be quite different. This may have an influence on migraine later in life.”
As for the value of the study in terms of diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of migraine, Dr. Dussor said, “it’s possible it could help to identify risk factors for higher migraine susceptibility but it’s far too early to know how this could be used.”
The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Dussor disclosed an NIH-funded grant to study the role of the hormone prolactin in preclinical migraine models.
DENVER – , even though testosterone is thought to be protective. The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, also hint at a possible role played by the prenatal environment.
The study marks the first time a large-scale twin dataset has been used to assess sex differences in underlying genetic factors of migraine, lead author Morgan Fitzgerald, a senior research associate at the University of California at San Diego, said in a presentation at the conference. The findings were previously published in Frontiers in Pain Research.
More than genetics
The researchers analyzed data regarding 51,872 participants in the Swedish Twin Registry. According to Dr. Fitzgerald, the database is ideal because it is large and includes both genders.
Per the database, female twins were more likely to have migraines without aura than were male twins (17.6% vs. 5.5%, respectively), reflecting global numbers that suggest 18% of females and 6% of males have migraines each year.
To better understand heritability, the researchers compared identical twins with fraternal twins, and looked for gender-related correlations, Dr. Fitzgerald said.
One analysis suggests that migraine is equally heritable in men and women with a broad sense heritability of 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.50). However, another analysis model provides evidence “that there are differences in the underlying genetic factors contributing to migraine across males and females,” she said.
Unexpectedly, the researchers also found that females with male twins were more likely to have migraines than were those with female twins (odds ratio, 1.51, 95% CI, 1.26-1.81) even though males are less affected by the headaches.
“These results suggest that the prominent sex difference in migraine prevalence is not entirely accounted for by genetic factors, while demonstrating that masculinization of the prenatal environment may increase migraine risk for females,” the authors wrote in the published study. “This effect points to a potential prenatal neuroendocrine factor in the development of migraine.”
Probing the migraine gender gap
Commenting on the research, University of Texas at Dallas neuroscientist and headache researcher Gregory Dussor, PhD, said the new study is “a very unique approach to address the question of nature versus nurture in migraine. It was well designed and used robust statistical modeling.”
As for the findings, “the conclusion that genetics do not explain sex differences in migraine risk by themselves is not surprising given how big of a role hormones in later life are likely to play in the disease and how many factors there are that can influence hormone levels,” he said.
“On the other hand, the surprising part of the findings was that the presence of a male co-twin increases risk of migraine in females. I would have expected to see the opposite, given the lower prevalence of migraine in males and the seemingly protective role that male hormones can play in migraine.”
Overall, the study adds to data implicating environment and hormones in the migraine gender gap, he said. “One thing I wonder from this study is what influence a female co-twin growing up with a male co-twin can have on migraine susceptibility. That female co-twin may end up with a very different set of childhood experiences than if she was with another female co-twin. Twins generally spend an enormous amount of time together and the same sex versus opposite sex experiences are likely to be quite different. This may have an influence on migraine later in life.”
As for the value of the study in terms of diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of migraine, Dr. Dussor said, “it’s possible it could help to identify risk factors for higher migraine susceptibility but it’s far too early to know how this could be used.”
The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Dussor disclosed an NIH-funded grant to study the role of the hormone prolactin in preclinical migraine models.
AT AHS 2022
Autoimmune disorder drugs top list of meds linked to headache
DENVER – in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.
Drugs most frequently linked to headaches
The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”
After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.
The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).
Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.
“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
Is the data useful?
Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.
“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”
When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.
No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
DENVER – in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.
Drugs most frequently linked to headaches
The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”
After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.
The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).
Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.
“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
Is the data useful?
Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.
“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”
When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.
No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
DENVER – in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.
Drugs most frequently linked to headaches
The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”
After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.
The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).
Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.
“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
Is the data useful?
Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.
“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”
When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.
No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
AT AHS 2022
Recommended headache treatments get mixed reception in EDs
DENVER – a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.
From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.
“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.
Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
Headache treatment in the ED
For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.
For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).
In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.
Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.
Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).
“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”
Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”
As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
Evidence-based treatments underutilized
Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”
As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
Overuse of neuroimaging
Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”
For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”
The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.
DENVER – a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.
From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.
“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.
Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
Headache treatment in the ED
For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.
For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).
In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.
Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.
Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).
“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”
Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”
As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
Evidence-based treatments underutilized
Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”
As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
Overuse of neuroimaging
Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”
For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”
The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.
DENVER – a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.
From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.
“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.
Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
Headache treatment in the ED
For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.
For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).
In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.
Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.
Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).
“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”
Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”
As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
Evidence-based treatments underutilized
Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”
As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
Overuse of neuroimaging
Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”
For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”
The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.
AT AHS 2022
Bariatric surgery can be a tool to relieve migraine
DENVER – , a neurologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. “There’s evidence-based medicine to support bariatric surgery, a lot of it, and the outcomes are actually pretty good,” said Jennifer McVige, MD, MA, of Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.
As Dr. McVige noted, research has linked obesity to migraine even after adjustment for comorbidities. A 2007 analysis of a survey of 30,215 participants, for example, found that “the proportion of subjects with severe headache pain increased with BMI, doubling in the morbidly obese relative to the normally weighted (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9).” And a 2011 study of 3,733 pregnant women found that risk of migraine increased in line with level of obesity: “obese women had a 1.48-fold increased odds of migraine (OR = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.96). Severely obese (OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.27-3.39) and morbidly obese (OR = 2.75; 95% CI, 1.60-4.70) had the highest odds of migraines.”
The link between obesity and headaches is unclear, she said, but there are hints at possible factors. For one, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is increased in people with obesity and is an important factor in migraines. Additionally, nausea is quite common in people with migraine, suggesting a possible gut-brain interaction – or not.
“Nausea is associated with a lot of the medicines that we give patients with migraine. Is it the nausea that’s associated with the migraine medicine, or is nausea occurring at the end of the migraine?” she asked. “That’s always been kind of a conundrum for us.”
Whatever the case, she said, bariatric surgery appears to be helpful for patients with headache. Some studies have been small, but a 2021 analysis of 1,680 patients with migraine found that 55% experienced remission with no need for medication at 180 days post surgery. Women, older patients, and those taking more migraine medications were less likely to reach remission.
Research also suggests that bariatric surgery can relieve headache symptoms in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Dr. McVige cautioned, however, that medical professionals must take special care when they talk to patients about their weight. “I’ve learned from conversations with my patients that they don’t like hearing ‘obese,’ or ‘fat,’ or ‘diet,’ or ‘losing weight.’ What they do like is ‘maybe we could try to find ways to be more healthy, to help your body to look the way that you would like it to look in the future. Let me help you. Maybe we can talk about nutrition. Maybe we can talk about exercise. Let’s talk about energy. Let’s talk about those types of things.’”
Unfortunately, there’s little research into how to have these conversations, Dr. McVige said. Still, “we need to be the first people to come forward and say, ‘This is a tough topic for me to talk about too. It makes me uncomfortable as well. I know you’re uncomfortable, but I have to talk to you because I care about you as a patient.’”
She also advised colleagues to not bring up weight right out of the gate. “It’s easier to say some of those things after you develop a relationship,” she said, “when they know you care about them.”
Dr. McVige reported multiple disclosures related to research funding and speaker fees.
DENVER – , a neurologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. “There’s evidence-based medicine to support bariatric surgery, a lot of it, and the outcomes are actually pretty good,” said Jennifer McVige, MD, MA, of Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.
As Dr. McVige noted, research has linked obesity to migraine even after adjustment for comorbidities. A 2007 analysis of a survey of 30,215 participants, for example, found that “the proportion of subjects with severe headache pain increased with BMI, doubling in the morbidly obese relative to the normally weighted (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9).” And a 2011 study of 3,733 pregnant women found that risk of migraine increased in line with level of obesity: “obese women had a 1.48-fold increased odds of migraine (OR = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.96). Severely obese (OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.27-3.39) and morbidly obese (OR = 2.75; 95% CI, 1.60-4.70) had the highest odds of migraines.”
The link between obesity and headaches is unclear, she said, but there are hints at possible factors. For one, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is increased in people with obesity and is an important factor in migraines. Additionally, nausea is quite common in people with migraine, suggesting a possible gut-brain interaction – or not.
“Nausea is associated with a lot of the medicines that we give patients with migraine. Is it the nausea that’s associated with the migraine medicine, or is nausea occurring at the end of the migraine?” she asked. “That’s always been kind of a conundrum for us.”
Whatever the case, she said, bariatric surgery appears to be helpful for patients with headache. Some studies have been small, but a 2021 analysis of 1,680 patients with migraine found that 55% experienced remission with no need for medication at 180 days post surgery. Women, older patients, and those taking more migraine medications were less likely to reach remission.
Research also suggests that bariatric surgery can relieve headache symptoms in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Dr. McVige cautioned, however, that medical professionals must take special care when they talk to patients about their weight. “I’ve learned from conversations with my patients that they don’t like hearing ‘obese,’ or ‘fat,’ or ‘diet,’ or ‘losing weight.’ What they do like is ‘maybe we could try to find ways to be more healthy, to help your body to look the way that you would like it to look in the future. Let me help you. Maybe we can talk about nutrition. Maybe we can talk about exercise. Let’s talk about energy. Let’s talk about those types of things.’”
Unfortunately, there’s little research into how to have these conversations, Dr. McVige said. Still, “we need to be the first people to come forward and say, ‘This is a tough topic for me to talk about too. It makes me uncomfortable as well. I know you’re uncomfortable, but I have to talk to you because I care about you as a patient.’”
She also advised colleagues to not bring up weight right out of the gate. “It’s easier to say some of those things after you develop a relationship,” she said, “when they know you care about them.”
Dr. McVige reported multiple disclosures related to research funding and speaker fees.
DENVER – , a neurologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. “There’s evidence-based medicine to support bariatric surgery, a lot of it, and the outcomes are actually pretty good,” said Jennifer McVige, MD, MA, of Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.
As Dr. McVige noted, research has linked obesity to migraine even after adjustment for comorbidities. A 2007 analysis of a survey of 30,215 participants, for example, found that “the proportion of subjects with severe headache pain increased with BMI, doubling in the morbidly obese relative to the normally weighted (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9).” And a 2011 study of 3,733 pregnant women found that risk of migraine increased in line with level of obesity: “obese women had a 1.48-fold increased odds of migraine (OR = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.96). Severely obese (OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.27-3.39) and morbidly obese (OR = 2.75; 95% CI, 1.60-4.70) had the highest odds of migraines.”
The link between obesity and headaches is unclear, she said, but there are hints at possible factors. For one, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is increased in people with obesity and is an important factor in migraines. Additionally, nausea is quite common in people with migraine, suggesting a possible gut-brain interaction – or not.
“Nausea is associated with a lot of the medicines that we give patients with migraine. Is it the nausea that’s associated with the migraine medicine, or is nausea occurring at the end of the migraine?” she asked. “That’s always been kind of a conundrum for us.”
Whatever the case, she said, bariatric surgery appears to be helpful for patients with headache. Some studies have been small, but a 2021 analysis of 1,680 patients with migraine found that 55% experienced remission with no need for medication at 180 days post surgery. Women, older patients, and those taking more migraine medications were less likely to reach remission.
Research also suggests that bariatric surgery can relieve headache symptoms in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Dr. McVige cautioned, however, that medical professionals must take special care when they talk to patients about their weight. “I’ve learned from conversations with my patients that they don’t like hearing ‘obese,’ or ‘fat,’ or ‘diet,’ or ‘losing weight.’ What they do like is ‘maybe we could try to find ways to be more healthy, to help your body to look the way that you would like it to look in the future. Let me help you. Maybe we can talk about nutrition. Maybe we can talk about exercise. Let’s talk about energy. Let’s talk about those types of things.’”
Unfortunately, there’s little research into how to have these conversations, Dr. McVige said. Still, “we need to be the first people to come forward and say, ‘This is a tough topic for me to talk about too. It makes me uncomfortable as well. I know you’re uncomfortable, but I have to talk to you because I care about you as a patient.’”
She also advised colleagues to not bring up weight right out of the gate. “It’s easier to say some of those things after you develop a relationship,” she said, “when they know you care about them.”
Dr. McVige reported multiple disclosures related to research funding and speaker fees.
AT AHS 2022
Psychedelic drugs ‘truly have potential’ in headache care
DENVER – Psychedelics such as psilocybin “truly have the potential to transform how we treat a number of neuropsychiatric diseases, including headaches,” a neuropharmacologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
However, Bryan Roth, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also offered a major cautionary note: There have been no randomized, phase 3 trials of psychedelics, and he bluntly said that “I do not recommend the use of psychedelics for any medical condition.”
The potential disease-altering powers of psychedelics have received a tremendous amount of research and media attention over the past several years. A landmark randomized, double-blind study released in 2016 triggered much of the interest, Dr. Roth said, when it suggested that high-dose psilocybin significantly lowered levels of depressed mood/anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer. At 6 months, 80% of patients who took the dose reported moderate or greater improvement in well-being/life satisfaction.
“You have the potential – unprecedented in psychiatry – that a single dose of a therapeutic agent may induce a rapid, robust, and sustained antidepressant action,” he said. Also of note: The “vast majority” of subjects say their encounter with a psychedelic was “one of the most meaningful experiences of their lives.”
Dr. Roth said his own research suggests that psychedelics cause a “huge increase” in the asynchronous firing of neurons. “Noise is being injected into the system and is interpreted by the brain or the mind, which always likes to make a story about what’s going on. The story it makes up is idiosyncratic to every person and memorable for reasons that are not understood.”
Now, Dr. Roth said, he and colleagues are working to “create drugs that have this potential remarkable therapeutic efficacy in psychiatric and neurologic disorders without the psychedelic effects.” A $27 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is providing support for their efforts, he said.
For the moment, he said, there’s no way to know if “the psychedelic experience is essential to the therapeutic action of these drugs. But it’s a testable hypothesis.”
As he noted, a tiny 2010 study of 2-bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which doesn’t cause hallucinations, showed promise as a treatment for cluster headaches.
For now, Dr. Roth said, his lab is synthesizing and testing new compounds that interact with the crucial 5-HT2A receptor.
Additional research
In another presentation at the AHS annual meeting, neurologist Emmanuelle A. D. Schindler, MD, PhD, of Yale School of Medicine, highlighted her 2021 study of an exploratory double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of psilocybin versus placebo for migraine headache. A single oral dose of the drug, the researchers found, reduced headache frequency and pain over 2 weeks. The study is small, with just 10 subjects, and multiple exclusion criteria.
She also revealed preliminary findings from an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of psilocybin versus placebo in cluster headaches. In 14 subjects, a psilocybin pulse was linked to fewer cluster attacks over 3 weeks, although the effect wasn’t statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant reduction over 8 weeks in patients with chronic headache.
Dr. Schindler noted that “with these early studies, we only looked out to 2 weeks for migraine, and we only looked out to 2 months for cluster.” There are multiple other limitations, she acknowledged. “We have to do a lot more research and consider safety as well.”
However, “there is a really unique capacity for lasting effects after limited dosing,” she added, and the studies do show reductions in headache burden “that do not correlate with acute psychedelic effects.”
Moving forward, Dr. Roth cautioned that while U.S. states are allowing the use of psychedelics for medical purposes, “we don’t know if they ultimately are therapeutic. And we have strong reason to believe that microdosing or chronic dosing of these compounds is ultimately going to be deleterious to the health of our patients.”
Dr. Roth did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Schindler discloses research funding (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Wallace Research Foundation, Clusterbusters, Department of Veterans Affairs), serves on advisory boards (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Clusterbusters), and has a patent.
DENVER – Psychedelics such as psilocybin “truly have the potential to transform how we treat a number of neuropsychiatric diseases, including headaches,” a neuropharmacologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
However, Bryan Roth, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also offered a major cautionary note: There have been no randomized, phase 3 trials of psychedelics, and he bluntly said that “I do not recommend the use of psychedelics for any medical condition.”
The potential disease-altering powers of psychedelics have received a tremendous amount of research and media attention over the past several years. A landmark randomized, double-blind study released in 2016 triggered much of the interest, Dr. Roth said, when it suggested that high-dose psilocybin significantly lowered levels of depressed mood/anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer. At 6 months, 80% of patients who took the dose reported moderate or greater improvement in well-being/life satisfaction.
“You have the potential – unprecedented in psychiatry – that a single dose of a therapeutic agent may induce a rapid, robust, and sustained antidepressant action,” he said. Also of note: The “vast majority” of subjects say their encounter with a psychedelic was “one of the most meaningful experiences of their lives.”
Dr. Roth said his own research suggests that psychedelics cause a “huge increase” in the asynchronous firing of neurons. “Noise is being injected into the system and is interpreted by the brain or the mind, which always likes to make a story about what’s going on. The story it makes up is idiosyncratic to every person and memorable for reasons that are not understood.”
Now, Dr. Roth said, he and colleagues are working to “create drugs that have this potential remarkable therapeutic efficacy in psychiatric and neurologic disorders without the psychedelic effects.” A $27 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is providing support for their efforts, he said.
For the moment, he said, there’s no way to know if “the psychedelic experience is essential to the therapeutic action of these drugs. But it’s a testable hypothesis.”
As he noted, a tiny 2010 study of 2-bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which doesn’t cause hallucinations, showed promise as a treatment for cluster headaches.
For now, Dr. Roth said, his lab is synthesizing and testing new compounds that interact with the crucial 5-HT2A receptor.
Additional research
In another presentation at the AHS annual meeting, neurologist Emmanuelle A. D. Schindler, MD, PhD, of Yale School of Medicine, highlighted her 2021 study of an exploratory double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of psilocybin versus placebo for migraine headache. A single oral dose of the drug, the researchers found, reduced headache frequency and pain over 2 weeks. The study is small, with just 10 subjects, and multiple exclusion criteria.
She also revealed preliminary findings from an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of psilocybin versus placebo in cluster headaches. In 14 subjects, a psilocybin pulse was linked to fewer cluster attacks over 3 weeks, although the effect wasn’t statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant reduction over 8 weeks in patients with chronic headache.
Dr. Schindler noted that “with these early studies, we only looked out to 2 weeks for migraine, and we only looked out to 2 months for cluster.” There are multiple other limitations, she acknowledged. “We have to do a lot more research and consider safety as well.”
However, “there is a really unique capacity for lasting effects after limited dosing,” she added, and the studies do show reductions in headache burden “that do not correlate with acute psychedelic effects.”
Moving forward, Dr. Roth cautioned that while U.S. states are allowing the use of psychedelics for medical purposes, “we don’t know if they ultimately are therapeutic. And we have strong reason to believe that microdosing or chronic dosing of these compounds is ultimately going to be deleterious to the health of our patients.”
Dr. Roth did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Schindler discloses research funding (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Wallace Research Foundation, Clusterbusters, Department of Veterans Affairs), serves on advisory boards (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Clusterbusters), and has a patent.
DENVER – Psychedelics such as psilocybin “truly have the potential to transform how we treat a number of neuropsychiatric diseases, including headaches,” a neuropharmacologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
However, Bryan Roth, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also offered a major cautionary note: There have been no randomized, phase 3 trials of psychedelics, and he bluntly said that “I do not recommend the use of psychedelics for any medical condition.”
The potential disease-altering powers of psychedelics have received a tremendous amount of research and media attention over the past several years. A landmark randomized, double-blind study released in 2016 triggered much of the interest, Dr. Roth said, when it suggested that high-dose psilocybin significantly lowered levels of depressed mood/anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer. At 6 months, 80% of patients who took the dose reported moderate or greater improvement in well-being/life satisfaction.
“You have the potential – unprecedented in psychiatry – that a single dose of a therapeutic agent may induce a rapid, robust, and sustained antidepressant action,” he said. Also of note: The “vast majority” of subjects say their encounter with a psychedelic was “one of the most meaningful experiences of their lives.”
Dr. Roth said his own research suggests that psychedelics cause a “huge increase” in the asynchronous firing of neurons. “Noise is being injected into the system and is interpreted by the brain or the mind, which always likes to make a story about what’s going on. The story it makes up is idiosyncratic to every person and memorable for reasons that are not understood.”
Now, Dr. Roth said, he and colleagues are working to “create drugs that have this potential remarkable therapeutic efficacy in psychiatric and neurologic disorders without the psychedelic effects.” A $27 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is providing support for their efforts, he said.
For the moment, he said, there’s no way to know if “the psychedelic experience is essential to the therapeutic action of these drugs. But it’s a testable hypothesis.”
As he noted, a tiny 2010 study of 2-bromo-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which doesn’t cause hallucinations, showed promise as a treatment for cluster headaches.
For now, Dr. Roth said, his lab is synthesizing and testing new compounds that interact with the crucial 5-HT2A receptor.
Additional research
In another presentation at the AHS annual meeting, neurologist Emmanuelle A. D. Schindler, MD, PhD, of Yale School of Medicine, highlighted her 2021 study of an exploratory double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study of psilocybin versus placebo for migraine headache. A single oral dose of the drug, the researchers found, reduced headache frequency and pain over 2 weeks. The study is small, with just 10 subjects, and multiple exclusion criteria.
She also revealed preliminary findings from an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of psilocybin versus placebo in cluster headaches. In 14 subjects, a psilocybin pulse was linked to fewer cluster attacks over 3 weeks, although the effect wasn’t statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant reduction over 8 weeks in patients with chronic headache.
Dr. Schindler noted that “with these early studies, we only looked out to 2 weeks for migraine, and we only looked out to 2 months for cluster.” There are multiple other limitations, she acknowledged. “We have to do a lot more research and consider safety as well.”
However, “there is a really unique capacity for lasting effects after limited dosing,” she added, and the studies do show reductions in headache burden “that do not correlate with acute psychedelic effects.”
Moving forward, Dr. Roth cautioned that while U.S. states are allowing the use of psychedelics for medical purposes, “we don’t know if they ultimately are therapeutic. And we have strong reason to believe that microdosing or chronic dosing of these compounds is ultimately going to be deleterious to the health of our patients.”
Dr. Roth did not provide disclosure information. Dr. Schindler discloses research funding (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Wallace Research Foundation, Clusterbusters, Department of Veterans Affairs), serves on advisory boards (Ceruvia Lifesciences, Clusterbusters), and has a patent.
FROM AHS 2022