MDedge Neurology

Merck’s antiviral pill for COVID-19, molnupiravir, appears to be far less effective than early results from the clinical trial first suggested.

According to an analysis by scientists at the Food and Drug Administration, the experimental pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by about 30%, compared to a placebo, and the pill showed no benefit for people with antibodies against COVID-19 from prior infection.

The updated analysis showed 48 hospitalizations or deaths among study participants who were randomly assigned to take the antiviral drug, compared to 68 among those who took a placebo.

Those results come from the full set of 1,433 patients who were randomized in the clinical trial, which just became available last week.

Initial results from the first 775 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, which were issued in a company news release in October, had said the drug cut the risk of hospitalization or death for patients at high risk of severe disease by about 50%.

Merck has been producing millions of doses of molnupiravir, which is the first antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 infections. The United Kingdom’s drug regulator authorized use of the medication in early November. The company said it expected to distribute the medication globally by the end of 2021.

In October, two Indian drug companies halted late-stage clinical trials of a generic version of molnupiravir after the studies failed to find any benefit to patients with moderate COVID-19. Trials in patients with milder symptoms are still ongoing.

On Nov. 27, the New England Journal of Medicine postponed its planned early release of the molnupiravir study results, citing “new information.”

The medication is designed to be given as four pills taken every 12 hours for 5 days. It’s most effective when taken within the first few days of new symptoms, something that requires convenient and affordable testing.

The new results seem to put molnupiravir far below the effectiveness of existing treatments.

The infused monoclonal antibody cocktail REGEN-COV, which the FDA has already authorized for emergency use, is about 85% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in patients who are at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and it appears to be just as effective in people who already have antibodies against COVID-19, which is why it is being given to both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the FDA said.

In early November, Pfizer said its experimental antiviral pill Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%.

In briefing documents posted ahead of an advisory committee meeting Nov. 30, the FDA highlights other potential safety issues with the Merck drug, which works by causing the virus to make mistakes as it copies itself, eventually causing the virus to mutate itself to death.

The agency has asked the advisory committee to weigh in on the right patient population for the drug: Should pregnant women get it? Could the drug harm a developing fetus?

Should vaccinated people with breakthrough infections get it? Would it work for them? People with reduced immune function are more likely to get a breakthrough infection. They’re also more likely to shed virus for a longer period of time, making them perfect incubators for variants. What could happen if we give this type of patient a drug that increases mutations?

And what about mutations caused by the medication? Could they increase the potential for more variants? The agency concluded the risk of this happening was low.

In animal studies, the drug impacted bone formation. For this reason, the agency has agreed with the drug company that molnupiravir should not be given to anyone under the age of 18.

Aside from these concerns, the FDA says there were no major safety issues among people who took part in the clinical trial, though they acknowledge that number is small.

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

Merck’s antiviral pill for COVID-19, molnupiravir, appears to be far less effective than early results from the clinical trial first suggested.

According to an analysis by scientists at the Food and Drug Administration, the experimental pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by about 30%, compared to a placebo, and the pill showed no benefit for people with antibodies against COVID-19 from prior infection.

The updated analysis showed 48 hospitalizations or deaths among study participants who were randomly assigned to take the antiviral drug, compared to 68 among those who took a placebo.

Those results come from the full set of 1,433 patients who were randomized in the clinical trial, which just became available last week.

Initial results from the first 775 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, which were issued in a company news release in October, had said the drug cut the risk of hospitalization or death for patients at high risk of severe disease by about 50%.

Merck has been producing millions of doses of molnupiravir, which is the first antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 infections. The United Kingdom’s drug regulator authorized use of the medication in early November. The company said it expected to distribute the medication globally by the end of 2021.

In October, two Indian drug companies halted late-stage clinical trials of a generic version of molnupiravir after the studies failed to find any benefit to patients with moderate COVID-19. Trials in patients with milder symptoms are still ongoing.

On Nov. 27, the New England Journal of Medicine postponed its planned early release of the molnupiravir study results, citing “new information.”

The medication is designed to be given as four pills taken every 12 hours for 5 days. It’s most effective when taken within the first few days of new symptoms, something that requires convenient and affordable testing.

The new results seem to put molnupiravir far below the effectiveness of existing treatments.

The infused monoclonal antibody cocktail REGEN-COV, which the FDA has already authorized for emergency use, is about 85% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in patients who are at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and it appears to be just as effective in people who already have antibodies against COVID-19, which is why it is being given to both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the FDA said.

In early November, Pfizer said its experimental antiviral pill Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%.

In briefing documents posted ahead of an advisory committee meeting Nov. 30, the FDA highlights other potential safety issues with the Merck drug, which works by causing the virus to make mistakes as it copies itself, eventually causing the virus to mutate itself to death.

The agency has asked the advisory committee to weigh in on the right patient population for the drug: Should pregnant women get it? Could the drug harm a developing fetus?

Should vaccinated people with breakthrough infections get it? Would it work for them? People with reduced immune function are more likely to get a breakthrough infection. They’re also more likely to shed virus for a longer period of time, making them perfect incubators for variants. What could happen if we give this type of patient a drug that increases mutations?

And what about mutations caused by the medication? Could they increase the potential for more variants? The agency concluded the risk of this happening was low.

In animal studies, the drug impacted bone formation. For this reason, the agency has agreed with the drug company that molnupiravir should not be given to anyone under the age of 18.

Aside from these concerns, the FDA says there were no major safety issues among people who took part in the clinical trial, though they acknowledge that number is small.

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

Merck’s antiviral pill for COVID-19, molnupiravir, appears to be far less effective than early results from the clinical trial first suggested.

According to an analysis by scientists at the Food and Drug Administration, the experimental pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by about 30%, compared to a placebo, and the pill showed no benefit for people with antibodies against COVID-19 from prior infection.

The updated analysis showed 48 hospitalizations or deaths among study participants who were randomly assigned to take the antiviral drug, compared to 68 among those who took a placebo.

Those results come from the full set of 1,433 patients who were randomized in the clinical trial, which just became available last week.

Initial results from the first 775 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, which were issued in a company news release in October, had said the drug cut the risk of hospitalization or death for patients at high risk of severe disease by about 50%.

Merck has been producing millions of doses of molnupiravir, which is the first antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 infections. The United Kingdom’s drug regulator authorized use of the medication in early November. The company said it expected to distribute the medication globally by the end of 2021.

In October, two Indian drug companies halted late-stage clinical trials of a generic version of molnupiravir after the studies failed to find any benefit to patients with moderate COVID-19. Trials in patients with milder symptoms are still ongoing.

On Nov. 27, the New England Journal of Medicine postponed its planned early release of the molnupiravir study results, citing “new information.”

The medication is designed to be given as four pills taken every 12 hours for 5 days. It’s most effective when taken within the first few days of new symptoms, something that requires convenient and affordable testing.

The new results seem to put molnupiravir far below the effectiveness of existing treatments.

The infused monoclonal antibody cocktail REGEN-COV, which the FDA has already authorized for emergency use, is about 85% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in patients who are at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and it appears to be just as effective in people who already have antibodies against COVID-19, which is why it is being given to both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the FDA said.

In early November, Pfizer said its experimental antiviral pill Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%.

In briefing documents posted ahead of an advisory committee meeting Nov. 30, the FDA highlights other potential safety issues with the Merck drug, which works by causing the virus to make mistakes as it copies itself, eventually causing the virus to mutate itself to death.

The agency has asked the advisory committee to weigh in on the right patient population for the drug: Should pregnant women get it? Could the drug harm a developing fetus?

Should vaccinated people with breakthrough infections get it? Would it work for them? People with reduced immune function are more likely to get a breakthrough infection. They’re also more likely to shed virus for a longer period of time, making them perfect incubators for variants. What could happen if we give this type of patient a drug that increases mutations?

And what about mutations caused by the medication? Could they increase the potential for more variants? The agency concluded the risk of this happening was low.

In animal studies, the drug impacted bone formation. For this reason, the agency has agreed with the drug company that molnupiravir should not be given to anyone under the age of 18.

Aside from these concerns, the FDA says there were no major safety issues among people who took part in the clinical trial, though they acknowledge that number is small.

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

Good data is lacking on best first-line MS drug strategies

Personalized medicine is just about the biggest buzzword in health. But neurologist Ellen M. Mowry, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steers patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) away from the concept when she first starts talking to them about initial therapy options and possible ways to forestall disability down the line.

Learn More

Good data is lacking on best first-line MS drug strategies

Personalized medicine is just about the biggest buzzword in health. But neurologist Ellen M. Mowry, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steers patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) away from the concept when she first starts talking to them about initial therapy options and possible ways to forestall disability down the line.

Learn More

Good data is lacking on best first-line MS drug strategies

Personalized medicine is just about the biggest buzzword in health. But neurologist Ellen M. Mowry, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steers patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) away from the concept when she first starts talking to them about initial therapy options and possible ways to forestall disability down the line.

Learn More

The 1992 presidential election fell during my last year of medical school. I remember watching the three-way debates over at a friend’s apartment.

After each one they’d cut to representatives of each candidate, and for the first time I heard the phrase “spin” or “spin doctors” referring to those who put a very selective angle on their candidates performance, no matter how bad it may have been, to make it sound like something amazingly awesome. This trend, driven now by the Internet and the 24/7 news cycle, has only accelerated over time.

Recently, I’ve been reading slides, press releases, and preliminary reports for the many agents that are seeking to cure Alzheimer’s disease. A desperately needed effort if ever there was one.

Yet, I get the same feeling I did in 1992. It seems like a lot of the statements are more selective than real: a carefully worded attempt to emphasize the good points and minimize the bad. Granted that’s the nature of many things, but here, in a world of a few percentage points, it seems more conspicuous than usual.

After all, even a non–statistically significant improvement of 1%-2% can look really good if you use the right graph style or comparison scale.

When I read such articles now, I find myself wondering if the drug really works or if the spin doctors have gotten so good at making even the most minuscule numbers look impressive that I can’t tell the difference. In theory many of these drugs should work, but, in Alzheimer’s disease “should” and “does” haven’t matched up particularly well to date.

To be clear, I’m not cheering for these drugs to fail. On the contrary, if one showed overwhelming evidence of benefit (as opposed to having to be spun to look good), I’d be thrilled. Along with the patients and their support circles, it’s their doctors who watch the sad downhill slide of dementia, with the patients dying long before their bodies do. I would be thrilled to be able to offer them something that had clearly meaningful benefit with a decent safety profile.

But, barring more solid data, I’m worried that many treatments in development for Alzheimer’s disease are more spin than substance.

I hope I’m wrong.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The 1992 presidential election fell during my last year of medical school. I remember watching the three-way debates over at a friend’s apartment.

After each one they’d cut to representatives of each candidate, and for the first time I heard the phrase “spin” or “spin doctors” referring to those who put a very selective angle on their candidates performance, no matter how bad it may have been, to make it sound like something amazingly awesome. This trend, driven now by the Internet and the 24/7 news cycle, has only accelerated over time.

Recently, I’ve been reading slides, press releases, and preliminary reports for the many agents that are seeking to cure Alzheimer’s disease. A desperately needed effort if ever there was one.

Yet, I get the same feeling I did in 1992. It seems like a lot of the statements are more selective than real: a carefully worded attempt to emphasize the good points and minimize the bad. Granted that’s the nature of many things, but here, in a world of a few percentage points, it seems more conspicuous than usual.

After all, even a non–statistically significant improvement of 1%-2% can look really good if you use the right graph style or comparison scale.

When I read such articles now, I find myself wondering if the drug really works or if the spin doctors have gotten so good at making even the most minuscule numbers look impressive that I can’t tell the difference. In theory many of these drugs should work, but, in Alzheimer’s disease “should” and “does” haven’t matched up particularly well to date.

To be clear, I’m not cheering for these drugs to fail. On the contrary, if one showed overwhelming evidence of benefit (as opposed to having to be spun to look good), I’d be thrilled. Along with the patients and their support circles, it’s their doctors who watch the sad downhill slide of dementia, with the patients dying long before their bodies do. I would be thrilled to be able to offer them something that had clearly meaningful benefit with a decent safety profile.

But, barring more solid data, I’m worried that many treatments in development for Alzheimer’s disease are more spin than substance.

I hope I’m wrong.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The 1992 presidential election fell during my last year of medical school. I remember watching the three-way debates over at a friend’s apartment.

After each one they’d cut to representatives of each candidate, and for the first time I heard the phrase “spin” or “spin doctors” referring to those who put a very selective angle on their candidates performance, no matter how bad it may have been, to make it sound like something amazingly awesome. This trend, driven now by the Internet and the 24/7 news cycle, has only accelerated over time.

Recently, I’ve been reading slides, press releases, and preliminary reports for the many agents that are seeking to cure Alzheimer’s disease. A desperately needed effort if ever there was one.

Yet, I get the same feeling I did in 1992. It seems like a lot of the statements are more selective than real: a carefully worded attempt to emphasize the good points and minimize the bad. Granted that’s the nature of many things, but here, in a world of a few percentage points, it seems more conspicuous than usual.

After all, even a non–statistically significant improvement of 1%-2% can look really good if you use the right graph style or comparison scale.

When I read such articles now, I find myself wondering if the drug really works or if the spin doctors have gotten so good at making even the most minuscule numbers look impressive that I can’t tell the difference. In theory many of these drugs should work, but, in Alzheimer’s disease “should” and “does” haven’t matched up particularly well to date.

To be clear, I’m not cheering for these drugs to fail. On the contrary, if one showed overwhelming evidence of benefit (as opposed to having to be spun to look good), I’d be thrilled. Along with the patients and their support circles, it’s their doctors who watch the sad downhill slide of dementia, with the patients dying long before their bodies do. I would be thrilled to be able to offer them something that had clearly meaningful benefit with a decent safety profile.

But, barring more solid data, I’m worried that many treatments in development for Alzheimer’s disease are more spin than substance.

I hope I’m wrong.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Ramy Sedhom, MD, a medical oncologist and a palliative care physician at Penn Medicine Princeton Health in Plainsboro, N.J., will always wonder if prior authorization refusals led to his patient’s death.

The patient had advanced gastric cancer and the insurer initially denied a PET scan to rule out metastatic disease. When the scan was eventually allowed, it revealed that the cancer had spread.

Standard treatment would have been difficult for the patient, an older individual with comorbidities. But Dr. Sedhom knew that a European study had reported equal efficacy and fewer side effects with a reduced chemotherapy regimen, and he thought that was the best approach in this situation.

The insurer disagreed with Dr. Sedhom’s decision and, while the two argued, the patient’s symptoms worsened. He was admitted to the hospital, where he experienced a decline in function, common for older patients. “Long story short, he was never able to seek treatment and then transitioned to hospice,” Dr. Sedhom said. “It was one of those situations where there was a 3- to 4-week delay in what should have been standard care.”

That course of events is not an outlier but everyday life for physicians trying to navigate insurers’ prior authorization rules before they can treat their patients. Nearly 4 years after major organizations — American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Medical Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and others — signed a consensus statement agreeing to improve the prior authorization process, physicians say little progress has been made.

Indeed, 83% of physicians say that the number of prior authorizations required for prescription medications and medical services has increased over the last 5 years, according to survey results released earlier this year.

“It’s decidedly worse — there’s no question about it,” said Andrew R. Spector, MD, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C. “Drugs that I used to get without prior authorizations now require them.”

When Vignesh I. Doraiswamy, MD, an internal medicine hospitalist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, discharged a patient with Clostridioides difficile infection, he followed clinical guidelines to prescribe vancomycin for 10 to 14 days. “And the insurance company said, ‘Well, yeah, we only authorize about 5 days,’ which just makes no sense,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “There’s nowhere in any literature that says 5 days is sufficient. What worries me is that is the standard of care we are supposed to give and yet we are unable to.”

Yash B. Jobanputra, MD, a cardiology fellow at Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Mass., laments that prior authorization is used in situations that simply do not make common sense. During his residency, a woman who had tested positive for the BRCA gene mutation with a strong family history of breast cancer needed a breast ultrasound and an MRI scan every 6 months to 1 year. Despite the documentation that she was at extremely high risk for developing breast cancer, he had to go through prior authorization every time she was due for new images.

“I had to call the insurance company, they would put me on hold, I would wait to speak to a physician — and the end response would be, ‘Yeah, this is what needs to be done,’” he said. “But having established her positive status once should be enough really. I shouldn’t have to go through the circus all over again.”

Prior authorization is also being used for routine diagnostics, such as a Holter monitor for patients complaining of heart palpitations. “Depending on the insurance, for some patients we can give it to them in the clinic right away,” Dr. Jobanputra said. “Whereas some others we have to wait until we get prior authorization from the insurance company and the patient has to come back again to the hospital to get the monitor. That is a delay in patient care.”

The delays also extend to emergency care, Dr. Doraiswamy said. He cites the example of a heart attack patient who needed an emergency heart catheterization but ran into a prior authorization delay. “I just said, ‘Try your best not to get stressed’ which is not easy for a patient finding out their stay wasn’t covered when they had just been through a heart attack,” he said. “Then I spent 20 to 30 minutes — most of it on hold — to answer the question ‘Why did this patient need to get admitted?’ “

Physicians feel disrespected because that type of prior authorization hassle is just busywork. “Rarely is a valid stay that was initially denied, not eventually accepted,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “But why couldn’t they have just seen that the guy had a heart attack and he obviously needed to be in the hospital?”

For Dr. Spector, the Duke Health sleep medicine specialist, prior authorization is not just a speed bump, it’s a full stop. Insurers have started mandating a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) to confirm narcolepsy before covering medication to treat the condition. “We know that the MSLT is very often wrong,” he said. “There are a lot of times we’re dealing with patients with narcolepsy who simply don’t meet the testing criteria that the insurance requires, and payers will not accept our clinical judgment.”

In his view, the prior authorization landscape is worsening — and not only because a “faulty test” is being used to deny treatment. “The appeal process is worse,” Dr. Spector said. “I used to be able to get on the phone and do a peer-to-peer review with a physician who I could reason with… but that doesn’t happen anymore. There is virtually no way to bypass these blanket rules.”

Other survey findings also stand in direct contradiction of the 2018 consensus agreement:

A large majority (87%) of physicians report that prior authorization interferes with continuity of care, even though the industry groups agreed that patients should be protected from treatment disruption when there is a formulary or treatment-coverage change.

Despite a consensus to encourage transparency and easy accessibility of prior authorization requirements, 68% of physicians reported that it is difficult to determine whether a prescription medication requires prior authorization, and 58% report that it’s difficult for medical services.

Phone and fax are the most commonly used methods for completing prior authorizations, despite agreement that electronic prior authorization, using existing national standard transactions, should be accelerated. Fewer than one quarter of physicians said that their electronic health record system supports electronic prior authorization for prescription medications.

Dr. Spector wants to see legislation that forces insurers to live up to some of the tenets of the 2018 consensus statement. In September, a new Texas law went into effect, exempting physicians from prior authorization if, during the previous six months, 90% of their treatments met an insurer›s medical necessity criteria. In January, the recently approved Prior Authorization Reform Act in Illinois will reduce the number of services subject to prior authorization, mandate a prior authorization decision within 5 days, and set disciplinary measures for health plans that do not comply, among other things.

“What gives me hope is that at least somewhere in the country, somebody is doing something,” Dr. Spector said. “And if it goes well, maybe other insurers will adopt it. I’m really hoping they demonstrate that the money they can save on the administration of all the appeals and prior authorization paperwork can actually go into caring for patients.”

In addition to state-level action, reform may also be advancing at the federal level. In October, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate that mirrors a prior authorization reform bill introduced in the House of Representatives last May. Both bills have broad bipartisan support; the House bill has more than 235 co-sponsors.

In an interview with this news organization, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) said it is “very realistic” that the bill will become law during this session of Congress. “We do think this bill will get marked up in committee and hopefully we can get it to the floor either as a stand-alone bill where we know we have the votes to pass it or as part of a larger legislative package,” he said.

If approved, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 would require that Medicare Advantage plans minimize the use of prior authorization for routinely approved services; require real-time decisions for certain requests; report the extent of their use of prior authorization and their rate of approvals or denials, among other things; and establish an electronic prior authorization system.

Medicare Advantage plans are private insurers that are regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which will create the specific rules and penalties associated with the reforms, if they become law. “One would presume that a condition of being a Medicare Advantage plan is that you’re going to have to comply with these new regulations,” said Katie Orrico, senior vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS). “So they will have some amount of teeth in the form of a mandate.”

The AANS and CNS are part of the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of 14 national physician specialty organizations. Winning prior authorization reform in the Medicare Advantage plans is part of its bigger strategy. “If those commercial plans have to follow a set of rules and processes for Medicare, then why not just expand those same processes to all other parts of their business?” Ms. Orrico said. 

Despite his frustration with their prior authorization processes, Dr. Doraiswamy, the Ohio State hospitalist, agrees that working to improve insurers’ practices is the best way forward. “It’s so easy to make them look like these evil, giant conglomerations that exist solely to suck money and not care about anyone’s health, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case,” he said. “We really have to figure out how best to work with insurance companies to make sure that, while they are profit-generating institutions, that [profit] shouldn’t come at the cost of patient care.”

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

Ramy Sedhom, MD, a medical oncologist and a palliative care physician at Penn Medicine Princeton Health in Plainsboro, N.J., will always wonder if prior authorization refusals led to his patient’s death.

The patient had advanced gastric cancer and the insurer initially denied a PET scan to rule out metastatic disease. When the scan was eventually allowed, it revealed that the cancer had spread.

Standard treatment would have been difficult for the patient, an older individual with comorbidities. But Dr. Sedhom knew that a European study had reported equal efficacy and fewer side effects with a reduced chemotherapy regimen, and he thought that was the best approach in this situation.

The insurer disagreed with Dr. Sedhom’s decision and, while the two argued, the patient’s symptoms worsened. He was admitted to the hospital, where he experienced a decline in function, common for older patients. “Long story short, he was never able to seek treatment and then transitioned to hospice,” Dr. Sedhom said. “It was one of those situations where there was a 3- to 4-week delay in what should have been standard care.”

That course of events is not an outlier but everyday life for physicians trying to navigate insurers’ prior authorization rules before they can treat their patients. Nearly 4 years after major organizations — American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Medical Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and others — signed a consensus statement agreeing to improve the prior authorization process, physicians say little progress has been made.

Indeed, 83% of physicians say that the number of prior authorizations required for prescription medications and medical services has increased over the last 5 years, according to survey results released earlier this year.

“It’s decidedly worse — there’s no question about it,” said Andrew R. Spector, MD, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C. “Drugs that I used to get without prior authorizations now require them.”

When Vignesh I. Doraiswamy, MD, an internal medicine hospitalist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, discharged a patient with Clostridioides difficile infection, he followed clinical guidelines to prescribe vancomycin for 10 to 14 days. “And the insurance company said, ‘Well, yeah, we only authorize about 5 days,’ which just makes no sense,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “There’s nowhere in any literature that says 5 days is sufficient. What worries me is that is the standard of care we are supposed to give and yet we are unable to.”

Yash B. Jobanputra, MD, a cardiology fellow at Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Mass., laments that prior authorization is used in situations that simply do not make common sense. During his residency, a woman who had tested positive for the BRCA gene mutation with a strong family history of breast cancer needed a breast ultrasound and an MRI scan every 6 months to 1 year. Despite the documentation that she was at extremely high risk for developing breast cancer, he had to go through prior authorization every time she was due for new images.

“I had to call the insurance company, they would put me on hold, I would wait to speak to a physician — and the end response would be, ‘Yeah, this is what needs to be done,’” he said. “But having established her positive status once should be enough really. I shouldn’t have to go through the circus all over again.”

Prior authorization is also being used for routine diagnostics, such as a Holter monitor for patients complaining of heart palpitations. “Depending on the insurance, for some patients we can give it to them in the clinic right away,” Dr. Jobanputra said. “Whereas some others we have to wait until we get prior authorization from the insurance company and the patient has to come back again to the hospital to get the monitor. That is a delay in patient care.”

The delays also extend to emergency care, Dr. Doraiswamy said. He cites the example of a heart attack patient who needed an emergency heart catheterization but ran into a prior authorization delay. “I just said, ‘Try your best not to get stressed’ which is not easy for a patient finding out their stay wasn’t covered when they had just been through a heart attack,” he said. “Then I spent 20 to 30 minutes — most of it on hold — to answer the question ‘Why did this patient need to get admitted?’ “

Physicians feel disrespected because that type of prior authorization hassle is just busywork. “Rarely is a valid stay that was initially denied, not eventually accepted,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “But why couldn’t they have just seen that the guy had a heart attack and he obviously needed to be in the hospital?”

For Dr. Spector, the Duke Health sleep medicine specialist, prior authorization is not just a speed bump, it’s a full stop. Insurers have started mandating a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) to confirm narcolepsy before covering medication to treat the condition. “We know that the MSLT is very often wrong,” he said. “There are a lot of times we’re dealing with patients with narcolepsy who simply don’t meet the testing criteria that the insurance requires, and payers will not accept our clinical judgment.”

In his view, the prior authorization landscape is worsening — and not only because a “faulty test” is being used to deny treatment. “The appeal process is worse,” Dr. Spector said. “I used to be able to get on the phone and do a peer-to-peer review with a physician who I could reason with… but that doesn’t happen anymore. There is virtually no way to bypass these blanket rules.”

Other survey findings also stand in direct contradiction of the 2018 consensus agreement:

A large majority (87%) of physicians report that prior authorization interferes with continuity of care, even though the industry groups agreed that patients should be protected from treatment disruption when there is a formulary or treatment-coverage change.

Despite a consensus to encourage transparency and easy accessibility of prior authorization requirements, 68% of physicians reported that it is difficult to determine whether a prescription medication requires prior authorization, and 58% report that it’s difficult for medical services.

Phone and fax are the most commonly used methods for completing prior authorizations, despite agreement that electronic prior authorization, using existing national standard transactions, should be accelerated. Fewer than one quarter of physicians said that their electronic health record system supports electronic prior authorization for prescription medications.

Dr. Spector wants to see legislation that forces insurers to live up to some of the tenets of the 2018 consensus statement. In September, a new Texas law went into effect, exempting physicians from prior authorization if, during the previous six months, 90% of their treatments met an insurer›s medical necessity criteria. In January, the recently approved Prior Authorization Reform Act in Illinois will reduce the number of services subject to prior authorization, mandate a prior authorization decision within 5 days, and set disciplinary measures for health plans that do not comply, among other things.

“What gives me hope is that at least somewhere in the country, somebody is doing something,” Dr. Spector said. “And if it goes well, maybe other insurers will adopt it. I’m really hoping they demonstrate that the money they can save on the administration of all the appeals and prior authorization paperwork can actually go into caring for patients.”

In addition to state-level action, reform may also be advancing at the federal level. In October, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate that mirrors a prior authorization reform bill introduced in the House of Representatives last May. Both bills have broad bipartisan support; the House bill has more than 235 co-sponsors.

In an interview with this news organization, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) said it is “very realistic” that the bill will become law during this session of Congress. “We do think this bill will get marked up in committee and hopefully we can get it to the floor either as a stand-alone bill where we know we have the votes to pass it or as part of a larger legislative package,” he said.

If approved, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 would require that Medicare Advantage plans minimize the use of prior authorization for routinely approved services; require real-time decisions for certain requests; report the extent of their use of prior authorization and their rate of approvals or denials, among other things; and establish an electronic prior authorization system.

Medicare Advantage plans are private insurers that are regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which will create the specific rules and penalties associated with the reforms, if they become law. “One would presume that a condition of being a Medicare Advantage plan is that you’re going to have to comply with these new regulations,” said Katie Orrico, senior vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS). “So they will have some amount of teeth in the form of a mandate.”

The AANS and CNS are part of the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of 14 national physician specialty organizations. Winning prior authorization reform in the Medicare Advantage plans is part of its bigger strategy. “If those commercial plans have to follow a set of rules and processes for Medicare, then why not just expand those same processes to all other parts of their business?” Ms. Orrico said. 

Despite his frustration with their prior authorization processes, Dr. Doraiswamy, the Ohio State hospitalist, agrees that working to improve insurers’ practices is the best way forward. “It’s so easy to make them look like these evil, giant conglomerations that exist solely to suck money and not care about anyone’s health, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case,” he said. “We really have to figure out how best to work with insurance companies to make sure that, while they are profit-generating institutions, that [profit] shouldn’t come at the cost of patient care.”

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

Ramy Sedhom, MD, a medical oncologist and a palliative care physician at Penn Medicine Princeton Health in Plainsboro, N.J., will always wonder if prior authorization refusals led to his patient’s death.

The patient had advanced gastric cancer and the insurer initially denied a PET scan to rule out metastatic disease. When the scan was eventually allowed, it revealed that the cancer had spread.

Standard treatment would have been difficult for the patient, an older individual with comorbidities. But Dr. Sedhom knew that a European study had reported equal efficacy and fewer side effects with a reduced chemotherapy regimen, and he thought that was the best approach in this situation.

The insurer disagreed with Dr. Sedhom’s decision and, while the two argued, the patient’s symptoms worsened. He was admitted to the hospital, where he experienced a decline in function, common for older patients. “Long story short, he was never able to seek treatment and then transitioned to hospice,” Dr. Sedhom said. “It was one of those situations where there was a 3- to 4-week delay in what should have been standard care.”

That course of events is not an outlier but everyday life for physicians trying to navigate insurers’ prior authorization rules before they can treat their patients. Nearly 4 years after major organizations — American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Medical Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and others — signed a consensus statement agreeing to improve the prior authorization process, physicians say little progress has been made.

Indeed, 83% of physicians say that the number of prior authorizations required for prescription medications and medical services has increased over the last 5 years, according to survey results released earlier this year.

“It’s decidedly worse — there’s no question about it,” said Andrew R. Spector, MD, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C. “Drugs that I used to get without prior authorizations now require them.”

When Vignesh I. Doraiswamy, MD, an internal medicine hospitalist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, discharged a patient with Clostridioides difficile infection, he followed clinical guidelines to prescribe vancomycin for 10 to 14 days. “And the insurance company said, ‘Well, yeah, we only authorize about 5 days,’ which just makes no sense,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “There’s nowhere in any literature that says 5 days is sufficient. What worries me is that is the standard of care we are supposed to give and yet we are unable to.”

Yash B. Jobanputra, MD, a cardiology fellow at Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Mass., laments that prior authorization is used in situations that simply do not make common sense. During his residency, a woman who had tested positive for the BRCA gene mutation with a strong family history of breast cancer needed a breast ultrasound and an MRI scan every 6 months to 1 year. Despite the documentation that she was at extremely high risk for developing breast cancer, he had to go through prior authorization every time she was due for new images.

“I had to call the insurance company, they would put me on hold, I would wait to speak to a physician — and the end response would be, ‘Yeah, this is what needs to be done,’” he said. “But having established her positive status once should be enough really. I shouldn’t have to go through the circus all over again.”

Prior authorization is also being used for routine diagnostics, such as a Holter monitor for patients complaining of heart palpitations. “Depending on the insurance, for some patients we can give it to them in the clinic right away,” Dr. Jobanputra said. “Whereas some others we have to wait until we get prior authorization from the insurance company and the patient has to come back again to the hospital to get the monitor. That is a delay in patient care.”

The delays also extend to emergency care, Dr. Doraiswamy said. He cites the example of a heart attack patient who needed an emergency heart catheterization but ran into a prior authorization delay. “I just said, ‘Try your best not to get stressed’ which is not easy for a patient finding out their stay wasn’t covered when they had just been through a heart attack,” he said. “Then I spent 20 to 30 minutes — most of it on hold — to answer the question ‘Why did this patient need to get admitted?’ “

Physicians feel disrespected because that type of prior authorization hassle is just busywork. “Rarely is a valid stay that was initially denied, not eventually accepted,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “But why couldn’t they have just seen that the guy had a heart attack and he obviously needed to be in the hospital?”

For Dr. Spector, the Duke Health sleep medicine specialist, prior authorization is not just a speed bump, it’s a full stop. Insurers have started mandating a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) to confirm narcolepsy before covering medication to treat the condition. “We know that the MSLT is very often wrong,” he said. “There are a lot of times we’re dealing with patients with narcolepsy who simply don’t meet the testing criteria that the insurance requires, and payers will not accept our clinical judgment.”

In his view, the prior authorization landscape is worsening — and not only because a “faulty test” is being used to deny treatment. “The appeal process is worse,” Dr. Spector said. “I used to be able to get on the phone and do a peer-to-peer review with a physician who I could reason with… but that doesn’t happen anymore. There is virtually no way to bypass these blanket rules.”

Other survey findings also stand in direct contradiction of the 2018 consensus agreement:

A large majority (87%) of physicians report that prior authorization interferes with continuity of care, even though the industry groups agreed that patients should be protected from treatment disruption when there is a formulary or treatment-coverage change.

Despite a consensus to encourage transparency and easy accessibility of prior authorization requirements, 68% of physicians reported that it is difficult to determine whether a prescription medication requires prior authorization, and 58% report that it’s difficult for medical services.

Phone and fax are the most commonly used methods for completing prior authorizations, despite agreement that electronic prior authorization, using existing national standard transactions, should be accelerated. Fewer than one quarter of physicians said that their electronic health record system supports electronic prior authorization for prescription medications.

Dr. Spector wants to see legislation that forces insurers to live up to some of the tenets of the 2018 consensus statement. In September, a new Texas law went into effect, exempting physicians from prior authorization if, during the previous six months, 90% of their treatments met an insurer›s medical necessity criteria. In January, the recently approved Prior Authorization Reform Act in Illinois will reduce the number of services subject to prior authorization, mandate a prior authorization decision within 5 days, and set disciplinary measures for health plans that do not comply, among other things.

“What gives me hope is that at least somewhere in the country, somebody is doing something,” Dr. Spector said. “And if it goes well, maybe other insurers will adopt it. I’m really hoping they demonstrate that the money they can save on the administration of all the appeals and prior authorization paperwork can actually go into caring for patients.”

In addition to state-level action, reform may also be advancing at the federal level. In October, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate that mirrors a prior authorization reform bill introduced in the House of Representatives last May. Both bills have broad bipartisan support; the House bill has more than 235 co-sponsors.

In an interview with this news organization, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) said it is “very realistic” that the bill will become law during this session of Congress. “We do think this bill will get marked up in committee and hopefully we can get it to the floor either as a stand-alone bill where we know we have the votes to pass it or as part of a larger legislative package,” he said.

If approved, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 would require that Medicare Advantage plans minimize the use of prior authorization for routinely approved services; require real-time decisions for certain requests; report the extent of their use of prior authorization and their rate of approvals or denials, among other things; and establish an electronic prior authorization system.

Medicare Advantage plans are private insurers that are regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which will create the specific rules and penalties associated with the reforms, if they become law. “One would presume that a condition of being a Medicare Advantage plan is that you’re going to have to comply with these new regulations,” said Katie Orrico, senior vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS). “So they will have some amount of teeth in the form of a mandate.”

The AANS and CNS are part of the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of 14 national physician specialty organizations. Winning prior authorization reform in the Medicare Advantage plans is part of its bigger strategy. “If those commercial plans have to follow a set of rules and processes for Medicare, then why not just expand those same processes to all other parts of their business?” Ms. Orrico said. 

Despite his frustration with their prior authorization processes, Dr. Doraiswamy, the Ohio State hospitalist, agrees that working to improve insurers’ practices is the best way forward. “It’s so easy to make them look like these evil, giant conglomerations that exist solely to suck money and not care about anyone’s health, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case,” he said. “We really have to figure out how best to work with insurance companies to make sure that, while they are profit-generating institutions, that [profit] shouldn’t come at the cost of patient care.”

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

The use of opiates in the treatment of headache has a controversial history, and it remains a matter of debate today. Some believe that the medications, though risky, can be a useful tool in the neurologist’s treatment arsenal, while others argue that opioids are just too risky when there are other, safer alternatives available.

Those were the cruxes of arguments put forward by Paul Rizzoli, MD, and Christopher H. Gottschalk, MD, who conducted individual talks at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Rizzoli, associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, argued in favor of the use of opioids and butalbital-containing medications. Dr. Gottschalk, assistant professor of neurology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., argued against their use.

In certain situations opioids are worth the risk

Whether or not to use opioids in the treatment of headache is “a reasonable question, because these medications can clearly be seen as having risk. So perhaps another way to frame this question is as a risk-benefit issue. Are these medications worth the risk? How useful is the benefit of opioids, if the consequence is dependence or addiction?” Dr. Rizzoli began.

Although reviews show effectiveness of opioids in treating migraine, a three-part review in 2012 found greater efficacy of dihydroergotamine (DHE), ketorolac, and chlorpromazine. That’s not surprising, said Dr. Rizzoli, since those competing drugs are migraine-specific.

Dr. Rizzoli quoted a 2014 review indicating that there were incomplete data on the relative efficacy of opioids versus other analgesics, and for some patients opioids would likely be the optimal treatment, such as those who have contraindications to ergot-type medications or neuroleptic medications, pregnant women, or patients who don’t respond to other medications.

Dr. Rizzoli noted that The International Association for the Study of Pain has concluded that no other oral medications provide immediate and effective pain relief, and that short-term use rarely leads to addiction.

“So, to me, the answer is not to avoid opioids or outlaw them but instead to use them judiciously and infrequently, and in a short term or rescue fashion,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He pointed out that physicians accept risks of other medications, and act to mitigate those risks. He said that risk mitigation with opioids can take the form of avoiding prescriptions in some situations, like when patients have a personal or family history of substance abuse, or in cases of some behavioral or emotional disorders.

Dr. Rizzoli went on to discuss the use of butalbital, which acts as a CNS depressant and has a variety of effects, including sedation, anxiolytic, hypnotic, and antiepileptic effects, but it is only a weak analgesic, but it nevertheless works in headache, said Dr. Rizzoli, citing patient reports and personal experience.

“It’s difficult to appreciate this theme of efficacy behind all the hype in the literature and in the press against butalbital, and the fact that it has not been adequately studied. But I would submit that the fact that we are even having this discussion is support enough for the use of butalbital. If butalbital either didn’t work or was simply a drug of abuse, it would likely have faded away by now,” said Dr. Rizzoli. He conceded that butalbital can be overused and may lead episodic headache to become chronic daily headache, but he noted that Seymour Solomon, MD, professor emeritus at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, has estimated that removal of butalbital from the market would reduce chronic headache in the general population by only a small fraction of one percent.

Butalbital also has another interesting effect, which is that patients may quickly return to normal functioning after the headache resolves. “Maybe this is all due to management of anxiety, the presumed mechanism of action of barbiturates. So, instead of lobbying for its removal, I would propose that we should take a closer look at what’s going on here, and what the mechanism of action of this fairly interesting compound might be,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Rizzoli also said there is some evidence that migraine-specific drugs also affect the tolerance to opioid drugs. “Somehow, they seem to interact with the opioid pain system. If that’s true, the implication is that you probably cannot escape the opioid receptors in the management of migraine,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Ultimately, he supports the judicious use of opioids and butalbital containing-medications for headache relief. “My argument is that it is just too simplistic to cease use of these meds. Yes, they should be used in a restricted and careful way, but not abandoned,” said Dr. Rizzoli.
 

Opiates should be avoided

Following Dr. Rizzoli’s presentation, Dr. Gottschalk presented an argument against the use of opioids in the treatment of headache.

He began by quoting the ABIM Choosing Wisely Campaign of 2012, which concluded that fioricet and narcotics should be avoided in headache unless the patient is desperate. “As a headache specialist, I can tell you that I have not faced situations sufficiently desperate to use any of these. The American Headache Society in a series of evidence assessments has concluded similarly, that they are of no use,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiates and barbiturates may also increase risk of migraine chronification. One study found that triptans are associated with low rates of chronification, at just a few percent when used fewer than 4 days a month, and about 20% per year when used 10-14 days per month. Opiate use showed a broadly similar pattern, while barbiturates showed a particularly alarming pattern: “Every level of use was associated with astronomically high rates and measurably higher at the highest level of use. For opiates, the odds ratio was about 2 – statistically significant. For barbiturates it was clearly greater than 2, whereas with triptans, the odds ratio showed a nonsignificant, slight increase in risk. And for NSAIDs, the odds ratio was, if anything, less than 1,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He also discussed aspects of behavioral pharmacology, in which positive reinforcement associated with decreased headache may encourage repeated use of the drug. “Given these, it should be no surprise to anyone that emergency room treatment with opiates for acute migraine is clearly associated with increased recidivism for patients given those drugs,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiate use is associated with increased pain sensitivity, and in the case of migraine, it may interfere with the activity of other treatments.

As for butalbital-containing compounds, they are positive-reinforcing drugs, and they are not indicated for migraine, only tension headache. There is no evidence of benefit in migraine, but butalbital is anxiolytic, which could lead an individual to increase its use.

A recent meta-analysis of therapies for episodic migraine found that hydromorphone and meperidine are less effective than standard therapies such as prochlorperazine or metoclopramide. Another study suggested that opioid use may interfere with the efficacy of NSAIDs in the emergency room environment, while a post hoc analysis of rizatriptan clinical trials found that recent opiate use was associated with a lower response rate, and the effect was more pronounced in women.

Among patients with chronic migraine, a 2004 study found that opiates were the most commonly used medication, and other studies found that chronic migraine does not arise in nonmigraine patients treated with opiates, “suggesting that migraine is specifically prone to opiate-induced hyperalgesia of migraine itself,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Even under careful monitoring, misuse occurs in more than 50% of patients, “suggesting that even under the best circumstances, it is difficult to use this class of drugs safely in long term,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He pointed out that the risk of drug addiction rises with various clinical and socioeconomic factors, including living in impoverished environments, adverse childhood experiences, low socioeconomic status, exposure to pollutants, and stressors. “In other words, all features associated with systemic racism are clearly associated with an increased risk of addiction,” said Dr. Gottschalk. Other factors include availability of the drug, such as whether or not a physician prescribes it, and repeated use.

These concerns, combined with positive-reinforcing properties of opiates and association with migraine progression and refractoriness, and the lack of progression risk found with use of NSAIDs and triptans, and the fact that effective acute therapy is associated with a lower risk of progression, argue against the use of opiates, said Dr. Gottschalk.

There is even a potential risk that the experience of migraine and its relief due to self-administration may become a rewarding experience that propagates the problem. It’s possible that anticipatory anxiety related to fear stressors could lead to migraine, or to physical sensations interpreted as migraine prodrome. “[It] raises the question of whether or not positive reinforcement by drugs makes migraine itself a rewarding experience and therefore more likely to occur as a cue for drug self-administration. The question I pose is: Is there any reason to test this theory in drugs of no proven benefit in the treatment of migraine? I would say very clearly, No,” said Dr. Gottschalk.
 

Clarifying the finer points of the debate

In the Q&A session after the talk, Dr. Rizzoli said that he doesn’t advocate for long-term use of opiates, except in rare cases where the diagnosis gets changed to a chronic pain syndrome. “We’re talking about intermittent use for treatment of an acute event. Do we put limits on them? I think the answer is clearly Yes, and the limits are more strict than those for triptans. My own sense as a clinician is I want all of the available tools. From a clinical perspective, there are a large number of people who do just fine with intermittent use of these medicines, and so I wouldn’t restrict them,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Gottschalk agreed that opiates may make sense for some patients, but expressed concerns about any and all physicians prescribing them. “The part about the tools is partly a question of: Who gets to use them? In the hands of a headache specialist in those isolated cases with careful restrictions, sure. But what I’m making is a slippery slope argument: What we know is that in emergency rooms, these are used routinely, and that [those] patients are precisely the ones who are at higher risk of addiction. So in some sense, I’m just saying I think we need to have much clearer boundaries,” he said.

Dr. Rizzoli has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottschalk has been on the advisory boards of Alder, AbbVie, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, Axsome, Vorso, Currax, and Impel. He has been a consultant for Alder, Alexion, and Spherix Global Insights. He has received research support from Relivion.

The use of opiates in the treatment of headache has a controversial history, and it remains a matter of debate today. Some believe that the medications, though risky, can be a useful tool in the neurologist’s treatment arsenal, while others argue that opioids are just too risky when there are other, safer alternatives available.

Those were the cruxes of arguments put forward by Paul Rizzoli, MD, and Christopher H. Gottschalk, MD, who conducted individual talks at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Rizzoli, associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, argued in favor of the use of opioids and butalbital-containing medications. Dr. Gottschalk, assistant professor of neurology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., argued against their use.

In certain situations opioids are worth the risk

Whether or not to use opioids in the treatment of headache is “a reasonable question, because these medications can clearly be seen as having risk. So perhaps another way to frame this question is as a risk-benefit issue. Are these medications worth the risk? How useful is the benefit of opioids, if the consequence is dependence or addiction?” Dr. Rizzoli began.

Although reviews show effectiveness of opioids in treating migraine, a three-part review in 2012 found greater efficacy of dihydroergotamine (DHE), ketorolac, and chlorpromazine. That’s not surprising, said Dr. Rizzoli, since those competing drugs are migraine-specific.

Dr. Rizzoli quoted a 2014 review indicating that there were incomplete data on the relative efficacy of opioids versus other analgesics, and for some patients opioids would likely be the optimal treatment, such as those who have contraindications to ergot-type medications or neuroleptic medications, pregnant women, or patients who don’t respond to other medications.

Dr. Rizzoli noted that The International Association for the Study of Pain has concluded that no other oral medications provide immediate and effective pain relief, and that short-term use rarely leads to addiction.

“So, to me, the answer is not to avoid opioids or outlaw them but instead to use them judiciously and infrequently, and in a short term or rescue fashion,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He pointed out that physicians accept risks of other medications, and act to mitigate those risks. He said that risk mitigation with opioids can take the form of avoiding prescriptions in some situations, like when patients have a personal or family history of substance abuse, or in cases of some behavioral or emotional disorders.

Dr. Rizzoli went on to discuss the use of butalbital, which acts as a CNS depressant and has a variety of effects, including sedation, anxiolytic, hypnotic, and antiepileptic effects, but it is only a weak analgesic, but it nevertheless works in headache, said Dr. Rizzoli, citing patient reports and personal experience.

“It’s difficult to appreciate this theme of efficacy behind all the hype in the literature and in the press against butalbital, and the fact that it has not been adequately studied. But I would submit that the fact that we are even having this discussion is support enough for the use of butalbital. If butalbital either didn’t work or was simply a drug of abuse, it would likely have faded away by now,” said Dr. Rizzoli. He conceded that butalbital can be overused and may lead episodic headache to become chronic daily headache, but he noted that Seymour Solomon, MD, professor emeritus at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, has estimated that removal of butalbital from the market would reduce chronic headache in the general population by only a small fraction of one percent.

Butalbital also has another interesting effect, which is that patients may quickly return to normal functioning after the headache resolves. “Maybe this is all due to management of anxiety, the presumed mechanism of action of barbiturates. So, instead of lobbying for its removal, I would propose that we should take a closer look at what’s going on here, and what the mechanism of action of this fairly interesting compound might be,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Rizzoli also said there is some evidence that migraine-specific drugs also affect the tolerance to opioid drugs. “Somehow, they seem to interact with the opioid pain system. If that’s true, the implication is that you probably cannot escape the opioid receptors in the management of migraine,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Ultimately, he supports the judicious use of opioids and butalbital containing-medications for headache relief. “My argument is that it is just too simplistic to cease use of these meds. Yes, they should be used in a restricted and careful way, but not abandoned,” said Dr. Rizzoli.
 

Opiates should be avoided

Following Dr. Rizzoli’s presentation, Dr. Gottschalk presented an argument against the use of opioids in the treatment of headache.

He began by quoting the ABIM Choosing Wisely Campaign of 2012, which concluded that fioricet and narcotics should be avoided in headache unless the patient is desperate. “As a headache specialist, I can tell you that I have not faced situations sufficiently desperate to use any of these. The American Headache Society in a series of evidence assessments has concluded similarly, that they are of no use,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiates and barbiturates may also increase risk of migraine chronification. One study found that triptans are associated with low rates of chronification, at just a few percent when used fewer than 4 days a month, and about 20% per year when used 10-14 days per month. Opiate use showed a broadly similar pattern, while barbiturates showed a particularly alarming pattern: “Every level of use was associated with astronomically high rates and measurably higher at the highest level of use. For opiates, the odds ratio was about 2 – statistically significant. For barbiturates it was clearly greater than 2, whereas with triptans, the odds ratio showed a nonsignificant, slight increase in risk. And for NSAIDs, the odds ratio was, if anything, less than 1,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He also discussed aspects of behavioral pharmacology, in which positive reinforcement associated with decreased headache may encourage repeated use of the drug. “Given these, it should be no surprise to anyone that emergency room treatment with opiates for acute migraine is clearly associated with increased recidivism for patients given those drugs,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiate use is associated with increased pain sensitivity, and in the case of migraine, it may interfere with the activity of other treatments.

As for butalbital-containing compounds, they are positive-reinforcing drugs, and they are not indicated for migraine, only tension headache. There is no evidence of benefit in migraine, but butalbital is anxiolytic, which could lead an individual to increase its use.

A recent meta-analysis of therapies for episodic migraine found that hydromorphone and meperidine are less effective than standard therapies such as prochlorperazine or metoclopramide. Another study suggested that opioid use may interfere with the efficacy of NSAIDs in the emergency room environment, while a post hoc analysis of rizatriptan clinical trials found that recent opiate use was associated with a lower response rate, and the effect was more pronounced in women.

Among patients with chronic migraine, a 2004 study found that opiates were the most commonly used medication, and other studies found that chronic migraine does not arise in nonmigraine patients treated with opiates, “suggesting that migraine is specifically prone to opiate-induced hyperalgesia of migraine itself,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Even under careful monitoring, misuse occurs in more than 50% of patients, “suggesting that even under the best circumstances, it is difficult to use this class of drugs safely in long term,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He pointed out that the risk of drug addiction rises with various clinical and socioeconomic factors, including living in impoverished environments, adverse childhood experiences, low socioeconomic status, exposure to pollutants, and stressors. “In other words, all features associated with systemic racism are clearly associated with an increased risk of addiction,” said Dr. Gottschalk. Other factors include availability of the drug, such as whether or not a physician prescribes it, and repeated use.

These concerns, combined with positive-reinforcing properties of opiates and association with migraine progression and refractoriness, and the lack of progression risk found with use of NSAIDs and triptans, and the fact that effective acute therapy is associated with a lower risk of progression, argue against the use of opiates, said Dr. Gottschalk.

There is even a potential risk that the experience of migraine and its relief due to self-administration may become a rewarding experience that propagates the problem. It’s possible that anticipatory anxiety related to fear stressors could lead to migraine, or to physical sensations interpreted as migraine prodrome. “[It] raises the question of whether or not positive reinforcement by drugs makes migraine itself a rewarding experience and therefore more likely to occur as a cue for drug self-administration. The question I pose is: Is there any reason to test this theory in drugs of no proven benefit in the treatment of migraine? I would say very clearly, No,” said Dr. Gottschalk.
 

Clarifying the finer points of the debate

In the Q&A session after the talk, Dr. Rizzoli said that he doesn’t advocate for long-term use of opiates, except in rare cases where the diagnosis gets changed to a chronic pain syndrome. “We’re talking about intermittent use for treatment of an acute event. Do we put limits on them? I think the answer is clearly Yes, and the limits are more strict than those for triptans. My own sense as a clinician is I want all of the available tools. From a clinical perspective, there are a large number of people who do just fine with intermittent use of these medicines, and so I wouldn’t restrict them,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Gottschalk agreed that opiates may make sense for some patients, but expressed concerns about any and all physicians prescribing them. “The part about the tools is partly a question of: Who gets to use them? In the hands of a headache specialist in those isolated cases with careful restrictions, sure. But what I’m making is a slippery slope argument: What we know is that in emergency rooms, these are used routinely, and that [those] patients are precisely the ones who are at higher risk of addiction. So in some sense, I’m just saying I think we need to have much clearer boundaries,” he said.

Dr. Rizzoli has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottschalk has been on the advisory boards of Alder, AbbVie, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, Axsome, Vorso, Currax, and Impel. He has been a consultant for Alder, Alexion, and Spherix Global Insights. He has received research support from Relivion.

The use of opiates in the treatment of headache has a controversial history, and it remains a matter of debate today. Some believe that the medications, though risky, can be a useful tool in the neurologist’s treatment arsenal, while others argue that opioids are just too risky when there are other, safer alternatives available.

Those were the cruxes of arguments put forward by Paul Rizzoli, MD, and Christopher H. Gottschalk, MD, who conducted individual talks at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Rizzoli, associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, argued in favor of the use of opioids and butalbital-containing medications. Dr. Gottschalk, assistant professor of neurology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., argued against their use.

In certain situations opioids are worth the risk

Whether or not to use opioids in the treatment of headache is “a reasonable question, because these medications can clearly be seen as having risk. So perhaps another way to frame this question is as a risk-benefit issue. Are these medications worth the risk? How useful is the benefit of opioids, if the consequence is dependence or addiction?” Dr. Rizzoli began.

Although reviews show effectiveness of opioids in treating migraine, a three-part review in 2012 found greater efficacy of dihydroergotamine (DHE), ketorolac, and chlorpromazine. That’s not surprising, said Dr. Rizzoli, since those competing drugs are migraine-specific.

Dr. Rizzoli quoted a 2014 review indicating that there were incomplete data on the relative efficacy of opioids versus other analgesics, and for some patients opioids would likely be the optimal treatment, such as those who have contraindications to ergot-type medications or neuroleptic medications, pregnant women, or patients who don’t respond to other medications.

Dr. Rizzoli noted that The International Association for the Study of Pain has concluded that no other oral medications provide immediate and effective pain relief, and that short-term use rarely leads to addiction.

“So, to me, the answer is not to avoid opioids or outlaw them but instead to use them judiciously and infrequently, and in a short term or rescue fashion,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He pointed out that physicians accept risks of other medications, and act to mitigate those risks. He said that risk mitigation with opioids can take the form of avoiding prescriptions in some situations, like when patients have a personal or family history of substance abuse, or in cases of some behavioral or emotional disorders.

Dr. Rizzoli went on to discuss the use of butalbital, which acts as a CNS depressant and has a variety of effects, including sedation, anxiolytic, hypnotic, and antiepileptic effects, but it is only a weak analgesic, but it nevertheless works in headache, said Dr. Rizzoli, citing patient reports and personal experience.

“It’s difficult to appreciate this theme of efficacy behind all the hype in the literature and in the press against butalbital, and the fact that it has not been adequately studied. But I would submit that the fact that we are even having this discussion is support enough for the use of butalbital. If butalbital either didn’t work or was simply a drug of abuse, it would likely have faded away by now,” said Dr. Rizzoli. He conceded that butalbital can be overused and may lead episodic headache to become chronic daily headache, but he noted that Seymour Solomon, MD, professor emeritus at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, has estimated that removal of butalbital from the market would reduce chronic headache in the general population by only a small fraction of one percent.

Butalbital also has another interesting effect, which is that patients may quickly return to normal functioning after the headache resolves. “Maybe this is all due to management of anxiety, the presumed mechanism of action of barbiturates. So, instead of lobbying for its removal, I would propose that we should take a closer look at what’s going on here, and what the mechanism of action of this fairly interesting compound might be,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Rizzoli also said there is some evidence that migraine-specific drugs also affect the tolerance to opioid drugs. “Somehow, they seem to interact with the opioid pain system. If that’s true, the implication is that you probably cannot escape the opioid receptors in the management of migraine,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Ultimately, he supports the judicious use of opioids and butalbital containing-medications for headache relief. “My argument is that it is just too simplistic to cease use of these meds. Yes, they should be used in a restricted and careful way, but not abandoned,” said Dr. Rizzoli.
 

Opiates should be avoided

Following Dr. Rizzoli’s presentation, Dr. Gottschalk presented an argument against the use of opioids in the treatment of headache.

He began by quoting the ABIM Choosing Wisely Campaign of 2012, which concluded that fioricet and narcotics should be avoided in headache unless the patient is desperate. “As a headache specialist, I can tell you that I have not faced situations sufficiently desperate to use any of these. The American Headache Society in a series of evidence assessments has concluded similarly, that they are of no use,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiates and barbiturates may also increase risk of migraine chronification. One study found that triptans are associated with low rates of chronification, at just a few percent when used fewer than 4 days a month, and about 20% per year when used 10-14 days per month. Opiate use showed a broadly similar pattern, while barbiturates showed a particularly alarming pattern: “Every level of use was associated with astronomically high rates and measurably higher at the highest level of use. For opiates, the odds ratio was about 2 – statistically significant. For barbiturates it was clearly greater than 2, whereas with triptans, the odds ratio showed a nonsignificant, slight increase in risk. And for NSAIDs, the odds ratio was, if anything, less than 1,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He also discussed aspects of behavioral pharmacology, in which positive reinforcement associated with decreased headache may encourage repeated use of the drug. “Given these, it should be no surprise to anyone that emergency room treatment with opiates for acute migraine is clearly associated with increased recidivism for patients given those drugs,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Opiate use is associated with increased pain sensitivity, and in the case of migraine, it may interfere with the activity of other treatments.

As for butalbital-containing compounds, they are positive-reinforcing drugs, and they are not indicated for migraine, only tension headache. There is no evidence of benefit in migraine, but butalbital is anxiolytic, which could lead an individual to increase its use.

A recent meta-analysis of therapies for episodic migraine found that hydromorphone and meperidine are less effective than standard therapies such as prochlorperazine or metoclopramide. Another study suggested that opioid use may interfere with the efficacy of NSAIDs in the emergency room environment, while a post hoc analysis of rizatriptan clinical trials found that recent opiate use was associated with a lower response rate, and the effect was more pronounced in women.

Among patients with chronic migraine, a 2004 study found that opiates were the most commonly used medication, and other studies found that chronic migraine does not arise in nonmigraine patients treated with opiates, “suggesting that migraine is specifically prone to opiate-induced hyperalgesia of migraine itself,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

Even under careful monitoring, misuse occurs in more than 50% of patients, “suggesting that even under the best circumstances, it is difficult to use this class of drugs safely in long term,” said Dr. Gottschalk.

He pointed out that the risk of drug addiction rises with various clinical and socioeconomic factors, including living in impoverished environments, adverse childhood experiences, low socioeconomic status, exposure to pollutants, and stressors. “In other words, all features associated with systemic racism are clearly associated with an increased risk of addiction,” said Dr. Gottschalk. Other factors include availability of the drug, such as whether or not a physician prescribes it, and repeated use.

These concerns, combined with positive-reinforcing properties of opiates and association with migraine progression and refractoriness, and the lack of progression risk found with use of NSAIDs and triptans, and the fact that effective acute therapy is associated with a lower risk of progression, argue against the use of opiates, said Dr. Gottschalk.

There is even a potential risk that the experience of migraine and its relief due to self-administration may become a rewarding experience that propagates the problem. It’s possible that anticipatory anxiety related to fear stressors could lead to migraine, or to physical sensations interpreted as migraine prodrome. “[It] raises the question of whether or not positive reinforcement by drugs makes migraine itself a rewarding experience and therefore more likely to occur as a cue for drug self-administration. The question I pose is: Is there any reason to test this theory in drugs of no proven benefit in the treatment of migraine? I would say very clearly, No,” said Dr. Gottschalk.
 

Clarifying the finer points of the debate

In the Q&A session after the talk, Dr. Rizzoli said that he doesn’t advocate for long-term use of opiates, except in rare cases where the diagnosis gets changed to a chronic pain syndrome. “We’re talking about intermittent use for treatment of an acute event. Do we put limits on them? I think the answer is clearly Yes, and the limits are more strict than those for triptans. My own sense as a clinician is I want all of the available tools. From a clinical perspective, there are a large number of people who do just fine with intermittent use of these medicines, and so I wouldn’t restrict them,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

Dr. Gottschalk agreed that opiates may make sense for some patients, but expressed concerns about any and all physicians prescribing them. “The part about the tools is partly a question of: Who gets to use them? In the hands of a headache specialist in those isolated cases with careful restrictions, sure. But what I’m making is a slippery slope argument: What we know is that in emergency rooms, these are used routinely, and that [those] patients are precisely the ones who are at higher risk of addiction. So in some sense, I’m just saying I think we need to have much clearer boundaries,” he said.

Dr. Rizzoli has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Gottschalk has been on the advisory boards of Alder, AbbVie, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Theranica, Upsher-Smith, Axsome, Vorso, Currax, and Impel. He has been a consultant for Alder, Alexion, and Spherix Global Insights. He has received research support from Relivion.

‘Grainy’ or ‘pixelated’ vision can be an alarming symptom for patients. The phenomenon is called visual snow, and although it was first described only recently, it is fairly common.

“This is a symptom of vision where patients describe numerous flickering dots throughout their vision. Sometimes they’ll use the term grainy or pixelated vision. Many times there’s a dynamic moving component to this. Many patients will describe this as like a TV static overlay on their vision,” Carrie Robertson, MD, said during a presentation on the topic at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Robertson is a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“It turns out that a little over 3% of us probably see this in our vision. So even if you haven’t seen this in the clinic yet, it’s likely that you will in the future,” said Dr. Robertson.

The first report describing visual snow appeared in 1995, among migraine patients. As of 2014 there were only 10 cases described in the literature. Although the condition was initially thought of as an unusual feature of migraine, a 2014 combined chart review and survey found that 15 of 22 patients had additional visual symptoms, such as photophobia or difficulty with night vision. Twenty of the 22 patients had comorbid migraine. Other symptoms include visual ghosts that persist after looking away from an object, as well as a higher frequency of experiencing floaters.

Symptoms aren’t restricted to the visual domain. Migraine, tinnitus, dizziness, and impaired concentration also occur.

The condition is more common than many suspect. “We used to think it was very rare. Now we assume that this was just under recognized,” said Dr. Robertson. One survey in the United Kingdom found that 3.7% of respondents reported visual snow, and 2.2% met the criteria for the syndrome.
 

A common and typically benign problem

It is a common clinical problem, according to Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program. “Almost every week I personally see somebody and then in our group, we have a whole host of them,” he said.

“When you see these patients in clinic, it’s important to remember that this is a heterogeneous disorder,” said Dr. Robertson. “Some patients will say, ‘Oh yeah, I’ve seen visual snow for as long as I can remember, I didn’t even know it was abnormal.’ Some will describe a family history of visual snow. Others will show up in clinic panicked because their visual snow just started or sometimes it’ll start after a triggering events like a head injury or hallucinogen use, and they’re worried that they’re going to go blind.”

It’s important to rule out other potential causes. Dr. Robertson’s group examined 248 cases of visual snow and found that 89 had a comorbidity that explained the condition. Issues within the retina, cornea, and the optical nerve can cause visual snow, which makes it critical that patients be seen by an ophthalmologist.

Some patients reported improvement when they stopped a new medication. “I always ask if there was a specific medicine that they started at the onset of their symptoms,” said Dr. Robertson. Other rare conditions associated with visual snow include idiopathic intracranial hypertension, posterior cortical atrophy, and even the Heidenhain variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

In the absence of a secondary cause, and the if condition doesn’t worsen, physicians should reassure patients that the condition is typically benign. “Many of these patients are panicked that they’re going to lose their vision, and that’s what brings them to your office. It’s important to stress that visual snow is real, that you believe them, that they’re seeing what they say that they’re seeing. It’s not a migraine aura, but it’s typically benign. I like to give the analogy that it’s similar to tinnitus because I think that that’s helpful for patients to put it in that category of benign but very annoying,” said Dr. Robertson.
 

Limited treatment options

Unfortunately, there is little evidence on medications to treat the problem. According to Dr. Robertson, the best available evidence – from case reports – is for lamotrigine. Nearly 20% of patients achieve a partial response, and complete responses are rare.

Clinical trials are a possibility, but patients should be made aware that medications have the potential to worsen visual snow.

Nonpharmaceutical approaches include visual and mental distraction, along with manipulation of lighting at work and at home. Stress reduction may help, and Dr. Robertson may send patients with dizziness for visual vestibular therapy to work on visual motion desensitization exercises.

There are visual snow relief videos available on YouTube, which may provide temporary relief. “It’s probably similar to white noise therapy for tinnitus,” said Dr. Robertson.

Colored glass lenses may be helpful. “I’m having the best success at this point with FL-41 lenses. Some prefer amber, and others prefer the rose-tinted, just like migraine. I usually start with that,” said Dr. Robertson. Yellow lenses may help with nyctalopia.

She recommends that patients avoid consuming too much caffeine, and that they avoid stimulants, especially attention-deficit disorder (ADD) medications. “I’ve had a lot of patients worsen with ADD medication,” said Dr. Robertson. She also warns patients away from marijuana and hallucinogens.

There is a large community available for patients with visual snow, including more than 60 Facebook groups, and many YouTube videos of patients describing their experiences. There is even a visual snow simulator that neurologists can show patients to confirm what they are seeing. “It’s very validating for the patient,” said Dr. Robertson.

Dr. Charles noted the relatively few treatment options and poor understanding of the mechanisms behind the condition. “It’s incredibly frustrating that we have to tell them that we have so little understanding of basic mechanisms, and no really clear therapeutic strategy that we can apply across all patients and expect results,” said Dr. Charles.

The heightened interest in the condition does represent some hope. “It’s very much reassuring to people that, number one, we’re starting to understand it – but number two, that they’re not crazy. It’s very much validating to hear that it’s now a topic of much more rigorous investigation,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Robertson and Dr. Charles have no relevant financial disclosures.

‘Grainy’ or ‘pixelated’ vision can be an alarming symptom for patients. The phenomenon is called visual snow, and although it was first described only recently, it is fairly common.

“This is a symptom of vision where patients describe numerous flickering dots throughout their vision. Sometimes they’ll use the term grainy or pixelated vision. Many times there’s a dynamic moving component to this. Many patients will describe this as like a TV static overlay on their vision,” Carrie Robertson, MD, said during a presentation on the topic at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Robertson is a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“It turns out that a little over 3% of us probably see this in our vision. So even if you haven’t seen this in the clinic yet, it’s likely that you will in the future,” said Dr. Robertson.

The first report describing visual snow appeared in 1995, among migraine patients. As of 2014 there were only 10 cases described in the literature. Although the condition was initially thought of as an unusual feature of migraine, a 2014 combined chart review and survey found that 15 of 22 patients had additional visual symptoms, such as photophobia or difficulty with night vision. Twenty of the 22 patients had comorbid migraine. Other symptoms include visual ghosts that persist after looking away from an object, as well as a higher frequency of experiencing floaters.

Symptoms aren’t restricted to the visual domain. Migraine, tinnitus, dizziness, and impaired concentration also occur.

The condition is more common than many suspect. “We used to think it was very rare. Now we assume that this was just under recognized,” said Dr. Robertson. One survey in the United Kingdom found that 3.7% of respondents reported visual snow, and 2.2% met the criteria for the syndrome.
 

A common and typically benign problem

It is a common clinical problem, according to Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program. “Almost every week I personally see somebody and then in our group, we have a whole host of them,” he said.

“When you see these patients in clinic, it’s important to remember that this is a heterogeneous disorder,” said Dr. Robertson. “Some patients will say, ‘Oh yeah, I’ve seen visual snow for as long as I can remember, I didn’t even know it was abnormal.’ Some will describe a family history of visual snow. Others will show up in clinic panicked because their visual snow just started or sometimes it’ll start after a triggering events like a head injury or hallucinogen use, and they’re worried that they’re going to go blind.”

It’s important to rule out other potential causes. Dr. Robertson’s group examined 248 cases of visual snow and found that 89 had a comorbidity that explained the condition. Issues within the retina, cornea, and the optical nerve can cause visual snow, which makes it critical that patients be seen by an ophthalmologist.

Some patients reported improvement when they stopped a new medication. “I always ask if there was a specific medicine that they started at the onset of their symptoms,” said Dr. Robertson. Other rare conditions associated with visual snow include idiopathic intracranial hypertension, posterior cortical atrophy, and even the Heidenhain variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

In the absence of a secondary cause, and the if condition doesn’t worsen, physicians should reassure patients that the condition is typically benign. “Many of these patients are panicked that they’re going to lose their vision, and that’s what brings them to your office. It’s important to stress that visual snow is real, that you believe them, that they’re seeing what they say that they’re seeing. It’s not a migraine aura, but it’s typically benign. I like to give the analogy that it’s similar to tinnitus because I think that that’s helpful for patients to put it in that category of benign but very annoying,” said Dr. Robertson.
 

Limited treatment options

Unfortunately, there is little evidence on medications to treat the problem. According to Dr. Robertson, the best available evidence – from case reports – is for lamotrigine. Nearly 20% of patients achieve a partial response, and complete responses are rare.

Clinical trials are a possibility, but patients should be made aware that medications have the potential to worsen visual snow.

Nonpharmaceutical approaches include visual and mental distraction, along with manipulation of lighting at work and at home. Stress reduction may help, and Dr. Robertson may send patients with dizziness for visual vestibular therapy to work on visual motion desensitization exercises.

There are visual snow relief videos available on YouTube, which may provide temporary relief. “It’s probably similar to white noise therapy for tinnitus,” said Dr. Robertson.

Colored glass lenses may be helpful. “I’m having the best success at this point with FL-41 lenses. Some prefer amber, and others prefer the rose-tinted, just like migraine. I usually start with that,” said Dr. Robertson. Yellow lenses may help with nyctalopia.

She recommends that patients avoid consuming too much caffeine, and that they avoid stimulants, especially attention-deficit disorder (ADD) medications. “I’ve had a lot of patients worsen with ADD medication,” said Dr. Robertson. She also warns patients away from marijuana and hallucinogens.

There is a large community available for patients with visual snow, including more than 60 Facebook groups, and many YouTube videos of patients describing their experiences. There is even a visual snow simulator that neurologists can show patients to confirm what they are seeing. “It’s very validating for the patient,” said Dr. Robertson.

Dr. Charles noted the relatively few treatment options and poor understanding of the mechanisms behind the condition. “It’s incredibly frustrating that we have to tell them that we have so little understanding of basic mechanisms, and no really clear therapeutic strategy that we can apply across all patients and expect results,” said Dr. Charles.

The heightened interest in the condition does represent some hope. “It’s very much reassuring to people that, number one, we’re starting to understand it – but number two, that they’re not crazy. It’s very much validating to hear that it’s now a topic of much more rigorous investigation,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Robertson and Dr. Charles have no relevant financial disclosures.

‘Grainy’ or ‘pixelated’ vision can be an alarming symptom for patients. The phenomenon is called visual snow, and although it was first described only recently, it is fairly common.

“This is a symptom of vision where patients describe numerous flickering dots throughout their vision. Sometimes they’ll use the term grainy or pixelated vision. Many times there’s a dynamic moving component to this. Many patients will describe this as like a TV static overlay on their vision,” Carrie Robertson, MD, said during a presentation on the topic at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium. Dr. Robertson is a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“It turns out that a little over 3% of us probably see this in our vision. So even if you haven’t seen this in the clinic yet, it’s likely that you will in the future,” said Dr. Robertson.

The first report describing visual snow appeared in 1995, among migraine patients. As of 2014 there were only 10 cases described in the literature. Although the condition was initially thought of as an unusual feature of migraine, a 2014 combined chart review and survey found that 15 of 22 patients had additional visual symptoms, such as photophobia or difficulty with night vision. Twenty of the 22 patients had comorbid migraine. Other symptoms include visual ghosts that persist after looking away from an object, as well as a higher frequency of experiencing floaters.

Symptoms aren’t restricted to the visual domain. Migraine, tinnitus, dizziness, and impaired concentration also occur.

The condition is more common than many suspect. “We used to think it was very rare. Now we assume that this was just under recognized,” said Dr. Robertson. One survey in the United Kingdom found that 3.7% of respondents reported visual snow, and 2.2% met the criteria for the syndrome.
 

A common and typically benign problem

It is a common clinical problem, according to Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program. “Almost every week I personally see somebody and then in our group, we have a whole host of them,” he said.

“When you see these patients in clinic, it’s important to remember that this is a heterogeneous disorder,” said Dr. Robertson. “Some patients will say, ‘Oh yeah, I’ve seen visual snow for as long as I can remember, I didn’t even know it was abnormal.’ Some will describe a family history of visual snow. Others will show up in clinic panicked because their visual snow just started or sometimes it’ll start after a triggering events like a head injury or hallucinogen use, and they’re worried that they’re going to go blind.”

It’s important to rule out other potential causes. Dr. Robertson’s group examined 248 cases of visual snow and found that 89 had a comorbidity that explained the condition. Issues within the retina, cornea, and the optical nerve can cause visual snow, which makes it critical that patients be seen by an ophthalmologist.

Some patients reported improvement when they stopped a new medication. “I always ask if there was a specific medicine that they started at the onset of their symptoms,” said Dr. Robertson. Other rare conditions associated with visual snow include idiopathic intracranial hypertension, posterior cortical atrophy, and even the Heidenhain variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

In the absence of a secondary cause, and the if condition doesn’t worsen, physicians should reassure patients that the condition is typically benign. “Many of these patients are panicked that they’re going to lose their vision, and that’s what brings them to your office. It’s important to stress that visual snow is real, that you believe them, that they’re seeing what they say that they’re seeing. It’s not a migraine aura, but it’s typically benign. I like to give the analogy that it’s similar to tinnitus because I think that that’s helpful for patients to put it in that category of benign but very annoying,” said Dr. Robertson.
 

Limited treatment options

Unfortunately, there is little evidence on medications to treat the problem. According to Dr. Robertson, the best available evidence – from case reports – is for lamotrigine. Nearly 20% of patients achieve a partial response, and complete responses are rare.

Clinical trials are a possibility, but patients should be made aware that medications have the potential to worsen visual snow.

Nonpharmaceutical approaches include visual and mental distraction, along with manipulation of lighting at work and at home. Stress reduction may help, and Dr. Robertson may send patients with dizziness for visual vestibular therapy to work on visual motion desensitization exercises.

There are visual snow relief videos available on YouTube, which may provide temporary relief. “It’s probably similar to white noise therapy for tinnitus,” said Dr. Robertson.

Colored glass lenses may be helpful. “I’m having the best success at this point with FL-41 lenses. Some prefer amber, and others prefer the rose-tinted, just like migraine. I usually start with that,” said Dr. Robertson. Yellow lenses may help with nyctalopia.

She recommends that patients avoid consuming too much caffeine, and that they avoid stimulants, especially attention-deficit disorder (ADD) medications. “I’ve had a lot of patients worsen with ADD medication,” said Dr. Robertson. She also warns patients away from marijuana and hallucinogens.

There is a large community available for patients with visual snow, including more than 60 Facebook groups, and many YouTube videos of patients describing their experiences. There is even a visual snow simulator that neurologists can show patients to confirm what they are seeing. “It’s very validating for the patient,” said Dr. Robertson.

Dr. Charles noted the relatively few treatment options and poor understanding of the mechanisms behind the condition. “It’s incredibly frustrating that we have to tell them that we have so little understanding of basic mechanisms, and no really clear therapeutic strategy that we can apply across all patients and expect results,” said Dr. Charles.

The heightened interest in the condition does represent some hope. “It’s very much reassuring to people that, number one, we’re starting to understand it – but number two, that they’re not crazy. It’s very much validating to hear that it’s now a topic of much more rigorous investigation,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Robertson and Dr. Charles have no relevant financial disclosures.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is linked to a significantly reduced risk of depression in patients with insomnia, new research shows.

Insomnia affects over 50% of older adults, and insomnia contributes to a twofold greater risk for major depression, investigators noted.

“We show that by treating insomnia with a simple behavioral approach called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia, or CBT-I, you can reduce the likelihood of developing depression by over 50%,” lead author Michael R. Irwin, MD, Cousins Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

The study is unique in that the treatment “is not just reducing depression, it’s preventing depression,” Dr. Irwin added.

The findings were published online Nov. 24 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Primary outcome met

The study included 291 patients aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70 years; 58% women) with confirmed insomnia disorder and no major depression within the previous 12 months.

All were randomly assigned to receive either CBT-I or Sleep Education Therapy (SET).

CBT-I is a first-line treatment for insomnia that includes five components: cognitive therapy targeting dysfunctional thoughts about sleep, stimulus control, sleep restriction, sleep hygiene, and relaxation.

SET provides information on behavioral and environmental factors contributing to poor sleep. While sleep education provides tips on improving sleep, CBT-I helps patients implement those changes and behaviors, Dr. Irwin noted.

Both interventions were delivered by trained personnel in weekly 120-minute group sessions for 2 months, consistent with the format and duration of most CBT-I trials.

The primary outcome was time to incident or recurrent major depressive disorder as diagnosed by the Structured Clinical Interview of the DSM-5 every 6 months during 36 months of follow-up. A monthly Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) was used to screen for depressive symptoms.

Results showed depression occurred in 12.2% of the CBT-I group versus 25.9% of the SET group. The hazard ratio (HR) for depression in the CBT-I group compared with the SET group was 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.88; P = .02). The number needed to treat to prevent incident or recurrent depression was 7.3.

After adjustment for factors affecting depression risk such as sex, educational level, income, comorbidity, and history of depression, the HR for depression in the CBT-I group versus the SET group was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.23-0.86; P = .02).

Treatment with CBT-I yielded an annual 4.1% incidence of depression, which is similar to the population rate and half the rate in SET, which was 8.6%.
 

‘Remission is key’

The secondary outcome was sustained remission of insomnia disorder. The investigators found a greater proportion of the CBT-I group than the SET group achieved remission after treatment (50.7% vs. 37.7%; 95% CI, 0.10-0.93; P = .02).

“Remission is really key to the benefits that we’re seeing,” said Dr. Irwin.

Inflammation may explain why insomnia raises the risk for depression, he noted. “We know sleep disturbance can lead to inflammation and we also know inflammation can produce depression,” Dr. Irwin said.

It is also possible insomnia leads to an impaired pleasure or reward system, which is linked to depression, he added.

The authors noted that because insomnia is associated with suicidal ideation and dementia, CBT-I may reduce risk for suicide or cognitive decline.

While 8-week CBT-I treatments are readily available, “unfortunately, most clinicians will prescribe medications,” said Dr. Irwin. He noted that in older adults, drugs are linked to adverse events such as falls and cognitive problems.

These new results “really argue that psychology and psychiatry need to be fully integrated into what we call collaborative care models,” Dr. Irwin said.

There were no adverse events during treatment, and none of the serious events that occurred during follow-up were attributed to the trial.
 

Convincing argument?

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Philip R. Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the study was “nicely written” and the authors put forward “a very convincing argument” for CBT-I to prevent depression.

“It’s eye opening in that it’s a robust study; it’s carefully done; subjects were followed for a long period of time, and it’s an accessible treatment,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the research.

The study also shows “it’s possible to intervene in something we know is a risk factor in elderly people,” he added. “We think of older people as being less malleable to these kinds of things, but they’re not. They clearly participated, and there wasn’t a huge dropout rate.”

Dr. Muskin noted that less than half of the older participants were married or had a partner. He would have liked more information on this status because being widowed or divorced, as well as when this life change occurred, could affect vulnerability to depression.

The authors of an accompanying editorial called the study “seminal,” and noted that insomnia treatment possibly preventing depressive disorders is a “major finding.”

Proving this preventive strategy is effective in older adults will be important because “insomnia and depression are highly prevalent in this population and the uptake of both preventive and treatment services is low,” wrote Pim Cuijpers, PhD, department of clinical, neuro, and developmental psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, and Charles F. Reynolds III, MD, department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh.

If the reduced rates of depression observed in the study could be generalized to the total population with insomnia, “the incidence of major depression could be reduced considerably,” they wrote.

“Can we prevent depression through interventions aimed at procrastination in college students, interventions aimed at perfectionism in perinatal women, stress management training for employees, social skills training in adolescents?” they asked.

This approach to preventing depressive disorders “offers all kinds of new opportunities to develop and test indirect interventions” for problems that are significantly associated with the onset of depression, the editorialists wrote.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Aging to the University of California, which partially supported the authors’ salaries. Dr. Irwin, Dr. Muskin, and Dr. Cuijpers have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Reynolds reported being coinventor of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, for which he receives royalties.

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

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is linked to a significantly reduced risk of depression in patients with insomnia, new research shows.

Insomnia affects over 50% of older adults, and insomnia contributes to a twofold greater risk for major depression, investigators noted.

“We show that by treating insomnia with a simple behavioral approach called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia, or CBT-I, you can reduce the likelihood of developing depression by over 50%,” lead author Michael R. Irwin, MD, Cousins Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

The study is unique in that the treatment “is not just reducing depression, it’s preventing depression,” Dr. Irwin added.

The findings were published online Nov. 24 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Primary outcome met

The study included 291 patients aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70 years; 58% women) with confirmed insomnia disorder and no major depression within the previous 12 months.

All were randomly assigned to receive either CBT-I or Sleep Education Therapy (SET).

CBT-I is a first-line treatment for insomnia that includes five components: cognitive therapy targeting dysfunctional thoughts about sleep, stimulus control, sleep restriction, sleep hygiene, and relaxation.

SET provides information on behavioral and environmental factors contributing to poor sleep. While sleep education provides tips on improving sleep, CBT-I helps patients implement those changes and behaviors, Dr. Irwin noted.

Both interventions were delivered by trained personnel in weekly 120-minute group sessions for 2 months, consistent with the format and duration of most CBT-I trials.

The primary outcome was time to incident or recurrent major depressive disorder as diagnosed by the Structured Clinical Interview of the DSM-5 every 6 months during 36 months of follow-up. A monthly Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) was used to screen for depressive symptoms.

Results showed depression occurred in 12.2% of the CBT-I group versus 25.9% of the SET group. The hazard ratio (HR) for depression in the CBT-I group compared with the SET group was 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.88; P = .02). The number needed to treat to prevent incident or recurrent depression was 7.3.

After adjustment for factors affecting depression risk such as sex, educational level, income, comorbidity, and history of depression, the HR for depression in the CBT-I group versus the SET group was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.23-0.86; P = .02).

Treatment with CBT-I yielded an annual 4.1% incidence of depression, which is similar to the population rate and half the rate in SET, which was 8.6%.
 

‘Remission is key’

The secondary outcome was sustained remission of insomnia disorder. The investigators found a greater proportion of the CBT-I group than the SET group achieved remission after treatment (50.7% vs. 37.7%; 95% CI, 0.10-0.93; P = .02).

“Remission is really key to the benefits that we’re seeing,” said Dr. Irwin.

Inflammation may explain why insomnia raises the risk for depression, he noted. “We know sleep disturbance can lead to inflammation and we also know inflammation can produce depression,” Dr. Irwin said.

It is also possible insomnia leads to an impaired pleasure or reward system, which is linked to depression, he added.

The authors noted that because insomnia is associated with suicidal ideation and dementia, CBT-I may reduce risk for suicide or cognitive decline.

While 8-week CBT-I treatments are readily available, “unfortunately, most clinicians will prescribe medications,” said Dr. Irwin. He noted that in older adults, drugs are linked to adverse events such as falls and cognitive problems.

These new results “really argue that psychology and psychiatry need to be fully integrated into what we call collaborative care models,” Dr. Irwin said.

There were no adverse events during treatment, and none of the serious events that occurred during follow-up were attributed to the trial.
 

Convincing argument?

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Philip R. Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the study was “nicely written” and the authors put forward “a very convincing argument” for CBT-I to prevent depression.

“It’s eye opening in that it’s a robust study; it’s carefully done; subjects were followed for a long period of time, and it’s an accessible treatment,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the research.

The study also shows “it’s possible to intervene in something we know is a risk factor in elderly people,” he added. “We think of older people as being less malleable to these kinds of things, but they’re not. They clearly participated, and there wasn’t a huge dropout rate.”

Dr. Muskin noted that less than half of the older participants were married or had a partner. He would have liked more information on this status because being widowed or divorced, as well as when this life change occurred, could affect vulnerability to depression.

The authors of an accompanying editorial called the study “seminal,” and noted that insomnia treatment possibly preventing depressive disorders is a “major finding.”

Proving this preventive strategy is effective in older adults will be important because “insomnia and depression are highly prevalent in this population and the uptake of both preventive and treatment services is low,” wrote Pim Cuijpers, PhD, department of clinical, neuro, and developmental psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, and Charles F. Reynolds III, MD, department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh.

If the reduced rates of depression observed in the study could be generalized to the total population with insomnia, “the incidence of major depression could be reduced considerably,” they wrote.

“Can we prevent depression through interventions aimed at procrastination in college students, interventions aimed at perfectionism in perinatal women, stress management training for employees, social skills training in adolescents?” they asked.

This approach to preventing depressive disorders “offers all kinds of new opportunities to develop and test indirect interventions” for problems that are significantly associated with the onset of depression, the editorialists wrote.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Aging to the University of California, which partially supported the authors’ salaries. Dr. Irwin, Dr. Muskin, and Dr. Cuijpers have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Reynolds reported being coinventor of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, for which he receives royalties.

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

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is linked to a significantly reduced risk of depression in patients with insomnia, new research shows.

Insomnia affects over 50% of older adults, and insomnia contributes to a twofold greater risk for major depression, investigators noted.

“We show that by treating insomnia with a simple behavioral approach called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia, or CBT-I, you can reduce the likelihood of developing depression by over 50%,” lead author Michael R. Irwin, MD, Cousins Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

The study is unique in that the treatment “is not just reducing depression, it’s preventing depression,” Dr. Irwin added.

The findings were published online Nov. 24 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Primary outcome met

The study included 291 patients aged 60 years and older (mean age, 70 years; 58% women) with confirmed insomnia disorder and no major depression within the previous 12 months.

All were randomly assigned to receive either CBT-I or Sleep Education Therapy (SET).

CBT-I is a first-line treatment for insomnia that includes five components: cognitive therapy targeting dysfunctional thoughts about sleep, stimulus control, sleep restriction, sleep hygiene, and relaxation.

SET provides information on behavioral and environmental factors contributing to poor sleep. While sleep education provides tips on improving sleep, CBT-I helps patients implement those changes and behaviors, Dr. Irwin noted.

Both interventions were delivered by trained personnel in weekly 120-minute group sessions for 2 months, consistent with the format and duration of most CBT-I trials.

The primary outcome was time to incident or recurrent major depressive disorder as diagnosed by the Structured Clinical Interview of the DSM-5 every 6 months during 36 months of follow-up. A monthly Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) was used to screen for depressive symptoms.

Results showed depression occurred in 12.2% of the CBT-I group versus 25.9% of the SET group. The hazard ratio (HR) for depression in the CBT-I group compared with the SET group was 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.88; P = .02). The number needed to treat to prevent incident or recurrent depression was 7.3.

After adjustment for factors affecting depression risk such as sex, educational level, income, comorbidity, and history of depression, the HR for depression in the CBT-I group versus the SET group was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.23-0.86; P = .02).

Treatment with CBT-I yielded an annual 4.1% incidence of depression, which is similar to the population rate and half the rate in SET, which was 8.6%.
 

‘Remission is key’

The secondary outcome was sustained remission of insomnia disorder. The investigators found a greater proportion of the CBT-I group than the SET group achieved remission after treatment (50.7% vs. 37.7%; 95% CI, 0.10-0.93; P = .02).

“Remission is really key to the benefits that we’re seeing,” said Dr. Irwin.

Inflammation may explain why insomnia raises the risk for depression, he noted. “We know sleep disturbance can lead to inflammation and we also know inflammation can produce depression,” Dr. Irwin said.

It is also possible insomnia leads to an impaired pleasure or reward system, which is linked to depression, he added.

The authors noted that because insomnia is associated with suicidal ideation and dementia, CBT-I may reduce risk for suicide or cognitive decline.

While 8-week CBT-I treatments are readily available, “unfortunately, most clinicians will prescribe medications,” said Dr. Irwin. He noted that in older adults, drugs are linked to adverse events such as falls and cognitive problems.

These new results “really argue that psychology and psychiatry need to be fully integrated into what we call collaborative care models,” Dr. Irwin said.

There were no adverse events during treatment, and none of the serious events that occurred during follow-up were attributed to the trial.
 

Convincing argument?

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Philip R. Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the study was “nicely written” and the authors put forward “a very convincing argument” for CBT-I to prevent depression.

“It’s eye opening in that it’s a robust study; it’s carefully done; subjects were followed for a long period of time, and it’s an accessible treatment,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the research.

The study also shows “it’s possible to intervene in something we know is a risk factor in elderly people,” he added. “We think of older people as being less malleable to these kinds of things, but they’re not. They clearly participated, and there wasn’t a huge dropout rate.”

Dr. Muskin noted that less than half of the older participants were married or had a partner. He would have liked more information on this status because being widowed or divorced, as well as when this life change occurred, could affect vulnerability to depression.

The authors of an accompanying editorial called the study “seminal,” and noted that insomnia treatment possibly preventing depressive disorders is a “major finding.”

Proving this preventive strategy is effective in older adults will be important because “insomnia and depression are highly prevalent in this population and the uptake of both preventive and treatment services is low,” wrote Pim Cuijpers, PhD, department of clinical, neuro, and developmental psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, and Charles F. Reynolds III, MD, department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh.

If the reduced rates of depression observed in the study could be generalized to the total population with insomnia, “the incidence of major depression could be reduced considerably,” they wrote.

“Can we prevent depression through interventions aimed at procrastination in college students, interventions aimed at perfectionism in perinatal women, stress management training for employees, social skills training in adolescents?” they asked.

This approach to preventing depressive disorders “offers all kinds of new opportunities to develop and test indirect interventions” for problems that are significantly associated with the onset of depression, the editorialists wrote.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Aging to the University of California, which partially supported the authors’ salaries. Dr. Irwin, Dr. Muskin, and Dr. Cuijpers have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Reynolds reported being coinventor of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, for which he receives royalties.

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

Hypertension is associated with more than a twofold increased risk of developing late-onset epilepsy even in patients who have not had a previous stroke, new research suggests.

After excluding individuals with normal blood pressure who were taking antihypertensive medication, investigators found hypertension was linked to an almost 2.5-fold higher risk of epilepsy.

“Our findings further expand upon our knowledge of the negative effects hypertension has on brain health and, regarding epilepsy, that effect may be starting even in midlife,” said co–lead author Maria Stefanidou, MD, MSc, of Boston University.

“Practicing clinicians should be vigilant to diagnose hypertension, discuss with patients all potential long-term brain health outcomes, and need for treatment. Furthermore, in those presenting with new-onset epilepsy later in life, screening for potentially undiagnosed hypertension should be included in the initial workup,” she said.

The study was published online Nov. 17, 2021, in Epilepsia.
 

Unknown etiology

“New-onset epilepsy risk increases with increasing age over the age of 65 and can affect 15-20 per 1,000 older individuals. Although the most common causes for seizures in this age group are prior history of stroke and presence of dementia, for about 30%-40% of patients, the etiology of seizures remains unknown,” Dr. Stefanidou said.

“We wanted to study if modifiable vascular risk factors that are known to contribute both to vascular brain aging and to neurodegeneration may directly predict the development of epilepsy, even in the absence of clinical stroke or dementia,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers turned to data from participants in the Offspring Cohort of the Framingham Health Study (FHS). The original FHS was an ongoing longitudinal community-based study that first began in 1948. Offspring of the original cohort and their spouses (n = 5,124) were enrolled in the Offspring Cohort in 1971, with surveillance of these second-generation participants based on exam visits occurring every 4 years.

The study included participants who had attended exam 5 (1991-1995), were age 45 years or older, had available vascular risk factor (VRF) data, and available follow-up data on epilepsy status (n = 2,986; mean age, 58 years; 48% male).

The investigators conducted two statistical analyses. In the primary model, they adjusted for age and gender, while in a secondary model they also adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke. They also conducted an analysis that excluded participants treated with antihypertensive medication and had normal blood pressure.
 

Plausible mechanisms

During a mean follow-up of 19.2 years, 55 incident epilepsy cases were identified. The mean age of these patients was 73.8 years.

In the primary model, hypertension was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.45; P = .017).

Interestingly, the Framingham Stroke Risk Profile – a calculation based on an array of factors, including age/sex, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive therapy, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and cigarette smoking – was not associated with incident epilepsy, and there was no other significant associated between any of the other VRFs when looked at independently.

When the researchers adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke, they continued to find an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.37; P = .022). An analysis that adjusted for competing risk of death obtained similar findings (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-3.81; P = .042).

The model that excluded patients receiving antihypertensive treatment, whose blood pressure readings were normal (n = 2,162; 50 incident epilepsy cases) showed an even stronger association (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.36-4.35; P = .003).

“Our results are based on an epidemiological, observational study, therefore our findings point to an association between hypertension and new-onset epilepsy later in life,” said Dr. Stefanidou.

She noted that because it was an observational study, “a cause-effect relationship cannot be established based on these results, but there is growing evidence from our, as well as other, similar cohorts that hypertension, a modifiable vascular risk factor, may indeed be an independent predictor of late-onset epilepsy.”

There are “plausible mechanisms” that support both a direct, and indirect, role of hypertension – for example, through accumulation of small vessel disease in the brain – but further research will be necessary to elucidate the exact mechanisms involved in the process,” she added.
 

‘Welcome addition’

In a joint comment, Hedley C.A. Emsley, PhD, professor of clinical neuroscience, Lancaster (England) University, and Jasmine Wall, MBBChir, academic clinical fellow in neurology, Lancaster University, described the study as a “welcome addition to this field,” noting that the Framingham Heart Study “lends itself well to an embedded observational study of this nature of late-onset epilepsy.”

Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall, who were not involved in the research, said that the “apparent magnitude of increased late-onset epilepsy risk association with hypertension in the Stefanidou et al study is quite striking,” even allowing for the “relatively small sample size,” since their analysis and findings appear to “withstand exclusion of individuals who became normotensive on antihypertensive treatment.”

They noted that in recent years there has been a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of hypertension in late-onset epilepsy epileptogenesis with subclinical cerebrovascular diseases, including “otherwise occult cerebral small vessel disease believed to be a frequent cause.”

The mechanisms “remain unclear,” but they could potentially include diffuse cerebral microangiopathy, structural and physiological changes, and/or blood-brain barrier dysfunction and leakage, they suggested.

“Although there is no current consensus over an age threshold that defines ‘late onset,’ we would argue that age thresholds used in such studies of late-onset epilepsy should be lower, to avoid missing younger adults at risk through vascular mechanisms,” Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall added.

The study authors suggest that “potential pathophysiologic mechanisms can further be explored in future experimental studies and clinical trials.”

This study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy/Seizures. Dr. Stefanidou disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertension is associated with more than a twofold increased risk of developing late-onset epilepsy even in patients who have not had a previous stroke, new research suggests.

After excluding individuals with normal blood pressure who were taking antihypertensive medication, investigators found hypertension was linked to an almost 2.5-fold higher risk of epilepsy.

“Our findings further expand upon our knowledge of the negative effects hypertension has on brain health and, regarding epilepsy, that effect may be starting even in midlife,” said co–lead author Maria Stefanidou, MD, MSc, of Boston University.

“Practicing clinicians should be vigilant to diagnose hypertension, discuss with patients all potential long-term brain health outcomes, and need for treatment. Furthermore, in those presenting with new-onset epilepsy later in life, screening for potentially undiagnosed hypertension should be included in the initial workup,” she said.

The study was published online Nov. 17, 2021, in Epilepsia.
 

Unknown etiology

“New-onset epilepsy risk increases with increasing age over the age of 65 and can affect 15-20 per 1,000 older individuals. Although the most common causes for seizures in this age group are prior history of stroke and presence of dementia, for about 30%-40% of patients, the etiology of seizures remains unknown,” Dr. Stefanidou said.

“We wanted to study if modifiable vascular risk factors that are known to contribute both to vascular brain aging and to neurodegeneration may directly predict the development of epilepsy, even in the absence of clinical stroke or dementia,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers turned to data from participants in the Offspring Cohort of the Framingham Health Study (FHS). The original FHS was an ongoing longitudinal community-based study that first began in 1948. Offspring of the original cohort and their spouses (n = 5,124) were enrolled in the Offspring Cohort in 1971, with surveillance of these second-generation participants based on exam visits occurring every 4 years.

The study included participants who had attended exam 5 (1991-1995), were age 45 years or older, had available vascular risk factor (VRF) data, and available follow-up data on epilepsy status (n = 2,986; mean age, 58 years; 48% male).

The investigators conducted two statistical analyses. In the primary model, they adjusted for age and gender, while in a secondary model they also adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke. They also conducted an analysis that excluded participants treated with antihypertensive medication and had normal blood pressure.
 

Plausible mechanisms

During a mean follow-up of 19.2 years, 55 incident epilepsy cases were identified. The mean age of these patients was 73.8 years.

In the primary model, hypertension was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.45; P = .017).

Interestingly, the Framingham Stroke Risk Profile – a calculation based on an array of factors, including age/sex, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive therapy, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and cigarette smoking – was not associated with incident epilepsy, and there was no other significant associated between any of the other VRFs when looked at independently.

When the researchers adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke, they continued to find an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.37; P = .022). An analysis that adjusted for competing risk of death obtained similar findings (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-3.81; P = .042).

The model that excluded patients receiving antihypertensive treatment, whose blood pressure readings were normal (n = 2,162; 50 incident epilepsy cases) showed an even stronger association (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.36-4.35; P = .003).

“Our results are based on an epidemiological, observational study, therefore our findings point to an association between hypertension and new-onset epilepsy later in life,” said Dr. Stefanidou.

She noted that because it was an observational study, “a cause-effect relationship cannot be established based on these results, but there is growing evidence from our, as well as other, similar cohorts that hypertension, a modifiable vascular risk factor, may indeed be an independent predictor of late-onset epilepsy.”

There are “plausible mechanisms” that support both a direct, and indirect, role of hypertension – for example, through accumulation of small vessel disease in the brain – but further research will be necessary to elucidate the exact mechanisms involved in the process,” she added.
 

‘Welcome addition’

In a joint comment, Hedley C.A. Emsley, PhD, professor of clinical neuroscience, Lancaster (England) University, and Jasmine Wall, MBBChir, academic clinical fellow in neurology, Lancaster University, described the study as a “welcome addition to this field,” noting that the Framingham Heart Study “lends itself well to an embedded observational study of this nature of late-onset epilepsy.”

Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall, who were not involved in the research, said that the “apparent magnitude of increased late-onset epilepsy risk association with hypertension in the Stefanidou et al study is quite striking,” even allowing for the “relatively small sample size,” since their analysis and findings appear to “withstand exclusion of individuals who became normotensive on antihypertensive treatment.”

They noted that in recent years there has been a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of hypertension in late-onset epilepsy epileptogenesis with subclinical cerebrovascular diseases, including “otherwise occult cerebral small vessel disease believed to be a frequent cause.”

The mechanisms “remain unclear,” but they could potentially include diffuse cerebral microangiopathy, structural and physiological changes, and/or blood-brain barrier dysfunction and leakage, they suggested.

“Although there is no current consensus over an age threshold that defines ‘late onset,’ we would argue that age thresholds used in such studies of late-onset epilepsy should be lower, to avoid missing younger adults at risk through vascular mechanisms,” Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall added.

The study authors suggest that “potential pathophysiologic mechanisms can further be explored in future experimental studies and clinical trials.”

This study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy/Seizures. Dr. Stefanidou disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertension is associated with more than a twofold increased risk of developing late-onset epilepsy even in patients who have not had a previous stroke, new research suggests.

After excluding individuals with normal blood pressure who were taking antihypertensive medication, investigators found hypertension was linked to an almost 2.5-fold higher risk of epilepsy.

“Our findings further expand upon our knowledge of the negative effects hypertension has on brain health and, regarding epilepsy, that effect may be starting even in midlife,” said co–lead author Maria Stefanidou, MD, MSc, of Boston University.

“Practicing clinicians should be vigilant to diagnose hypertension, discuss with patients all potential long-term brain health outcomes, and need for treatment. Furthermore, in those presenting with new-onset epilepsy later in life, screening for potentially undiagnosed hypertension should be included in the initial workup,” she said.

The study was published online Nov. 17, 2021, in Epilepsia.
 

Unknown etiology

“New-onset epilepsy risk increases with increasing age over the age of 65 and can affect 15-20 per 1,000 older individuals. Although the most common causes for seizures in this age group are prior history of stroke and presence of dementia, for about 30%-40% of patients, the etiology of seizures remains unknown,” Dr. Stefanidou said.

“We wanted to study if modifiable vascular risk factors that are known to contribute both to vascular brain aging and to neurodegeneration may directly predict the development of epilepsy, even in the absence of clinical stroke or dementia,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers turned to data from participants in the Offspring Cohort of the Framingham Health Study (FHS). The original FHS was an ongoing longitudinal community-based study that first began in 1948. Offspring of the original cohort and their spouses (n = 5,124) were enrolled in the Offspring Cohort in 1971, with surveillance of these second-generation participants based on exam visits occurring every 4 years.

The study included participants who had attended exam 5 (1991-1995), were age 45 years or older, had available vascular risk factor (VRF) data, and available follow-up data on epilepsy status (n = 2,986; mean age, 58 years; 48% male).

The investigators conducted two statistical analyses. In the primary model, they adjusted for age and gender, while in a secondary model they also adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke. They also conducted an analysis that excluded participants treated with antihypertensive medication and had normal blood pressure.
 

Plausible mechanisms

During a mean follow-up of 19.2 years, 55 incident epilepsy cases were identified. The mean age of these patients was 73.8 years.

In the primary model, hypertension was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.45; P = .017).

Interestingly, the Framingham Stroke Risk Profile – a calculation based on an array of factors, including age/sex, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive therapy, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and cigarette smoking – was not associated with incident epilepsy, and there was no other significant associated between any of the other VRFs when looked at independently.

When the researchers adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke, they continued to find an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.37; P = .022). An analysis that adjusted for competing risk of death obtained similar findings (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-3.81; P = .042).

The model that excluded patients receiving antihypertensive treatment, whose blood pressure readings were normal (n = 2,162; 50 incident epilepsy cases) showed an even stronger association (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.36-4.35; P = .003).

“Our results are based on an epidemiological, observational study, therefore our findings point to an association between hypertension and new-onset epilepsy later in life,” said Dr. Stefanidou.

She noted that because it was an observational study, “a cause-effect relationship cannot be established based on these results, but there is growing evidence from our, as well as other, similar cohorts that hypertension, a modifiable vascular risk factor, may indeed be an independent predictor of late-onset epilepsy.”

There are “plausible mechanisms” that support both a direct, and indirect, role of hypertension – for example, through accumulation of small vessel disease in the brain – but further research will be necessary to elucidate the exact mechanisms involved in the process,” she added.
 

‘Welcome addition’

In a joint comment, Hedley C.A. Emsley, PhD, professor of clinical neuroscience, Lancaster (England) University, and Jasmine Wall, MBBChir, academic clinical fellow in neurology, Lancaster University, described the study as a “welcome addition to this field,” noting that the Framingham Heart Study “lends itself well to an embedded observational study of this nature of late-onset epilepsy.”

Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall, who were not involved in the research, said that the “apparent magnitude of increased late-onset epilepsy risk association with hypertension in the Stefanidou et al study is quite striking,” even allowing for the “relatively small sample size,” since their analysis and findings appear to “withstand exclusion of individuals who became normotensive on antihypertensive treatment.”

They noted that in recent years there has been a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of hypertension in late-onset epilepsy epileptogenesis with subclinical cerebrovascular diseases, including “otherwise occult cerebral small vessel disease believed to be a frequent cause.”

The mechanisms “remain unclear,” but they could potentially include diffuse cerebral microangiopathy, structural and physiological changes, and/or blood-brain barrier dysfunction and leakage, they suggested.

“Although there is no current consensus over an age threshold that defines ‘late onset,’ we would argue that age thresholds used in such studies of late-onset epilepsy should be lower, to avoid missing younger adults at risk through vascular mechanisms,” Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall added.

The study authors suggest that “potential pathophysiologic mechanisms can further be explored in future experimental studies and clinical trials.”

This study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy/Seizures. Dr. Stefanidou disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Certain opioids are proving to be effective in treating a variety of itch conditions, according to Brian S. Kim, MD.

“We know that opioids or opiates do cause itch in a significant number of patients,” Dr. Kim, a dermatologist who is codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch & Sensory Disorders at Washington University, St. Louis, said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It’s thought to do this by way of acting as a pruritogen at times and stimulating sensory neurons [that] then activate the itch cascade. But it’s also been well known that endogenous kappa opioids can activate sensory neurons that can then suppress itch and gate out signals from these opiates, but perhaps other pruritogens as well.”

Multiple drugs differentially target kappa-opioid receptor (KOR) and mu-opioid receptor (MOR) pathways, he continued. For example, oral naltrexone is a MOR antagonist, oral nalfurafine and intravenous difelikefalin are KOR agonists, while intranasal butorphanol and oral nalbuphine have a dual mechanism.

Difelikefalin is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for uremic pruritus associated with dialysis, approved in August 2021 for moderate-to-severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis; it is administered intravenously. During the 2021 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Dr. Kim and colleagues presented findings from a phase 2 trial of 401 people with atopic dermatitis (AD) and moderate to severe pruritus, who were randomized to receive oral difelikefalin at a dose of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, or 1.0 mg, or placebo over a 12-week treatment period. The primary endpoint, change from baseline in Itch Numerical Rating Scale score, was not met in any of the difelikefalin dose groups in the overall study population, but patients with a body surface area of less than 10% experienced a significant improvement in itch at week 12 in the combined difelikefalin dose group in (P = .039). A significant reduction in itch with difelikefalin was seen in this group of patients with itch-dominant AD, as early as the second day of treatment.

In another trial, 373 hemodialysis patients with moderate or severe uremic pruritus were randomized in a 1: 1:1 ratio to nalbuphine extended-release tablets 120 mg, 60 mg, or placebo and treated for 8 weeks. The researchers found that nalbuphine 120 mg significantly reduced the itching intensity. Specifically, from a baseline numerical rate scale (NRS) of 6.9, the mean NRS declined by 3.5 and by 2.8 in the nalbuphine 120-mg and the placebo groups, respectively (P = .017).

In a separate, unpublished multicenter, randomized, phase 2/3 trial, researchers evaluated the safety and antipruritic efficacy of nalbuphine extended-release tablets dosed twice daily at 90 mg and 180 mg in 62 patients in the United States and Europe. The proportion of patients in the nalbuphine 180-mg arm who met 50% responder criteria at week 10 or last observed visit approached statistical significance (P = .083), and this arm met statistical significance for patients who completed treatment (P = .028).

Dr. Kim disclosed that he has served as a consultant for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Cara Therapeutics, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Trevi Therapeutics. He also has conducted contracted research for Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Certain opioids are proving to be effective in treating a variety of itch conditions, according to Brian S. Kim, MD.

“We know that opioids or opiates do cause itch in a significant number of patients,” Dr. Kim, a dermatologist who is codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch & Sensory Disorders at Washington University, St. Louis, said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It’s thought to do this by way of acting as a pruritogen at times and stimulating sensory neurons [that] then activate the itch cascade. But it’s also been well known that endogenous kappa opioids can activate sensory neurons that can then suppress itch and gate out signals from these opiates, but perhaps other pruritogens as well.”

Multiple drugs differentially target kappa-opioid receptor (KOR) and mu-opioid receptor (MOR) pathways, he continued. For example, oral naltrexone is a MOR antagonist, oral nalfurafine and intravenous difelikefalin are KOR agonists, while intranasal butorphanol and oral nalbuphine have a dual mechanism.

Difelikefalin is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for uremic pruritus associated with dialysis, approved in August 2021 for moderate-to-severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis; it is administered intravenously. During the 2021 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Dr. Kim and colleagues presented findings from a phase 2 trial of 401 people with atopic dermatitis (AD) and moderate to severe pruritus, who were randomized to receive oral difelikefalin at a dose of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, or 1.0 mg, or placebo over a 12-week treatment period. The primary endpoint, change from baseline in Itch Numerical Rating Scale score, was not met in any of the difelikefalin dose groups in the overall study population, but patients with a body surface area of less than 10% experienced a significant improvement in itch at week 12 in the combined difelikefalin dose group in (P = .039). A significant reduction in itch with difelikefalin was seen in this group of patients with itch-dominant AD, as early as the second day of treatment.

In another trial, 373 hemodialysis patients with moderate or severe uremic pruritus were randomized in a 1: 1:1 ratio to nalbuphine extended-release tablets 120 mg, 60 mg, or placebo and treated for 8 weeks. The researchers found that nalbuphine 120 mg significantly reduced the itching intensity. Specifically, from a baseline numerical rate scale (NRS) of 6.9, the mean NRS declined by 3.5 and by 2.8 in the nalbuphine 120-mg and the placebo groups, respectively (P = .017).

In a separate, unpublished multicenter, randomized, phase 2/3 trial, researchers evaluated the safety and antipruritic efficacy of nalbuphine extended-release tablets dosed twice daily at 90 mg and 180 mg in 62 patients in the United States and Europe. The proportion of patients in the nalbuphine 180-mg arm who met 50% responder criteria at week 10 or last observed visit approached statistical significance (P = .083), and this arm met statistical significance for patients who completed treatment (P = .028).

Dr. Kim disclosed that he has served as a consultant for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Cara Therapeutics, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Trevi Therapeutics. He also has conducted contracted research for Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Certain opioids are proving to be effective in treating a variety of itch conditions, according to Brian S. Kim, MD.

“We know that opioids or opiates do cause itch in a significant number of patients,” Dr. Kim, a dermatologist who is codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch & Sensory Disorders at Washington University, St. Louis, said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It’s thought to do this by way of acting as a pruritogen at times and stimulating sensory neurons [that] then activate the itch cascade. But it’s also been well known that endogenous kappa opioids can activate sensory neurons that can then suppress itch and gate out signals from these opiates, but perhaps other pruritogens as well.”

Multiple drugs differentially target kappa-opioid receptor (KOR) and mu-opioid receptor (MOR) pathways, he continued. For example, oral naltrexone is a MOR antagonist, oral nalfurafine and intravenous difelikefalin are KOR agonists, while intranasal butorphanol and oral nalbuphine have a dual mechanism.

Difelikefalin is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for uremic pruritus associated with dialysis, approved in August 2021 for moderate-to-severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis; it is administered intravenously. During the 2021 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Dr. Kim and colleagues presented findings from a phase 2 trial of 401 people with atopic dermatitis (AD) and moderate to severe pruritus, who were randomized to receive oral difelikefalin at a dose of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, or 1.0 mg, or placebo over a 12-week treatment period. The primary endpoint, change from baseline in Itch Numerical Rating Scale score, was not met in any of the difelikefalin dose groups in the overall study population, but patients with a body surface area of less than 10% experienced a significant improvement in itch at week 12 in the combined difelikefalin dose group in (P = .039). A significant reduction in itch with difelikefalin was seen in this group of patients with itch-dominant AD, as early as the second day of treatment.

In another trial, 373 hemodialysis patients with moderate or severe uremic pruritus were randomized in a 1: 1:1 ratio to nalbuphine extended-release tablets 120 mg, 60 mg, or placebo and treated for 8 weeks. The researchers found that nalbuphine 120 mg significantly reduced the itching intensity. Specifically, from a baseline numerical rate scale (NRS) of 6.9, the mean NRS declined by 3.5 and by 2.8 in the nalbuphine 120-mg and the placebo groups, respectively (P = .017).

In a separate, unpublished multicenter, randomized, phase 2/3 trial, researchers evaluated the safety and antipruritic efficacy of nalbuphine extended-release tablets dosed twice daily at 90 mg and 180 mg in 62 patients in the United States and Europe. The proportion of patients in the nalbuphine 180-mg arm who met 50% responder criteria at week 10 or last observed visit approached statistical significance (P = .083), and this arm met statistical significance for patients who completed treatment (P = .028).

Dr. Kim disclosed that he has served as a consultant for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Cara Therapeutics, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Trevi Therapeutics. He also has conducted contracted research for Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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