MDedge Neurology

Pandemic smoking: More or less?

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.

artisteer/Getty Images

New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.

Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?

Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”

This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
 

3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear

Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.

It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?

Leonard Mukooli/Pixabay

To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.

Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.

It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
 

Proteins don’t lie

Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.

The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
 

Dreaming about COVID?

We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?

Unsplash/@spanic

This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”

“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.

We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.

Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary. 

Pandemic smoking: More or less?

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.

artisteer/Getty Images

New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.

Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?

Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”

This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
 

3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear

Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.

It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?

Leonard Mukooli/Pixabay

To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.

Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.

It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
 

Proteins don’t lie

Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.

The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
 

Dreaming about COVID?

We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?

Unsplash/@spanic

This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”

“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.

We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.

Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary. 

Pandemic smoking: More or less?

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.

artisteer/Getty Images

New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.

Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?

Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”

This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
 

3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear

Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.

It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?

Leonard Mukooli/Pixabay

To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.

Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.

It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
 

Proteins don’t lie

Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.

The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
 

Dreaming about COVID?

We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?

Unsplash/@spanic

This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”

“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.

We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.

Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary. 

Few patients with migraine receive or are offered preventive therapy, leaving a significant treatment gap in this patient population, new research suggests. Investigators found that among patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapy, more than a third were not offered this option. In addition, fewer than 10% were currently taking preventive medication, and an additional 10% had discontinued preventive therapy.

“We confirmed that as of 2012 to 2013 – the years these data were collected from a large, comprehensive survey – gaps in care remained,” said study investigator Stephanie J. Nahas, MD, director of the headache medicine fellowship program, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “In this preventive-eligible population, 35% reported never even being offered preventive medication.”

Furthermore, only 28% of patients taking preventive medication experienced a reduction in headache frequency to less than 4 days per month, which is a primary goal of treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Disease burden, as measured with scales of disability and affective comorbidities, remained substantial.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.


 

Lack of efficacy?

In 2019, the American Headache Society published a position statement recommending that preventive treatment be considered for patients who have migraine and four or more monthly headache days (MHDs), regardless of their level of associated disability. However, previous data suggest few patients who are eligible for preventive treatment receive it. In addition, many who have used preventive medications do not adhere to their regimens because of problems with tolerability, efficacy, or both.

To identify treatment gaps and characterize self-reported use of preventive medications for migraine, the investigators examined data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a web-based survey conducted in a representative U.S. sample from September 2012 through November 2013.

The survey identified and characterized patients who met modified criteria for migraine consistent with those in ICHD-3. The researchers classified respondents who had migraine and four or more MHDs as potentially eligible for migraine preventive treatment.

The investigators assessed the study population’s use of oral preventive medications, migraine-related disability and burden, willingness to take preventive treatment, and reasons for discontinuation.

Assessments included the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 for depression, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, the Migraine Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, and the Migraine Symptom Severity Scale.

In all, 16,789 respondents met criteria for migraine, and 6,579 (39.2%) reported having at least four MHDs. The median age of this subgroup that was eligible for preventive treatment was 40.3 years, and approximately 79% were women.

Only 9.8% of respondents who were eligible for preventive medications were currently using an oral preventive medication. Among those who had ever tried an oral preventive medication, 53.6% discontinued it. Efficacy for patients who used medications appeared to be inadequate. Among all current users of preventive treatment, 68.4% continued to have at least four MHDs.

The researchers assessed treatment eligibility among patients not taking preventive medication. Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 35.7% were eligible to receive it. Among all users who had discontinued preventive medication, 61.0% were still eligible to receive it.
 

Attitudes toward injectables

Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 64.3% had zero to three MHDs. The remaining 35.7% had 4-7, 8-14, or 15 or more MHDs. Among current users of preventive treatments, 68.4% had four or more MHDs. Among those who had discontinued preventive treatment, 61.0% had four or more MHDs.

Patients who have never used preventive medication “have substantial management gaps,” said Dr. Nahas. High proportions of these patients have moderate or severe disability (64.7%), depression (43%), and anxiety (39%). The rates of these outcomes are higher in users who discontinued treatment, likely because of confounding by indication, she added.

The prevalence of anxiety was similar between those who currently used, formerly used, or never used preventive medications. However, there were differences between never-users and current or former users with respect to moderate to severe depression (never-users, 43%; current users, 49.4%; discontinued users, 46.5%) and moderate to severe disability (never-users, 64.7%; current users, 80.4%; discontinued users, 78.9%).

In all, 44.6% of those who discontinued preventive therapy reported safety and tolerability problems as reasons for stopping treatment. In addition, 39.7% reported that these medications did not prevent enough headaches. Some patients reported partial or temporary efficacy as a reason for discontinuation. Other reasons were related to health care costs and access and personal preferences. Only 9.2% of patients who discontinued treatment said that their headaches improved enough to stop medication.

The investigators also analyzed respondents’ interest in preventive therapies. Among respondents who had never used preventive therapies, 61.8% of those who were eligible to use them were somewhat or very interested in trying an oral prescription medication for migraine prevention. However, 59.1% of never-users who were eligible for preventive medications were not at all interested, not sure, or needed more information about trying an injectable preventive medication. About 40% were not at all interested in injectables. In general, current users and those who had discontinued medication were more interested in preventive medication, including injectables.
 

‘Disheartening’ discontinuation rates

There are likely multiple reasons for the low rate of migraine prevention treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Many people with migraine never consult a clinician, owing to factors such as stigma, cost, lack of access, and lack of awareness. In addition, patients with migraine are frequently misdiagnosed, she added.

“Other data suggest that only about a quarter of people with episodic migraine and under 5% of people with chronic migraine consult a clinician, receive an accurate diagnosis, and are prescribed appropriate therapy,” said Dr. Nahas.

When the data in this analysis were gathered, public awareness of migraine was much lower than it is today, and injectable migraine therapies had not gained broad acceptance, she noted. Dr. Nahas added it is possible that attitudes toward injectable preventive medications have changed.

“Would people still prefer daily oral medications? We can’t know for sure until we start asking,” she said. In addition, scientific advances and educational outreach have increased clinicians’ awareness, interest, and skill regarding injectable medications, she said.

“I would certainly hope to see that a much greater proportion of preventive-eligible persons with migraine were at least offered, if not currently taking, preventive medication,” said Dr. Nahas. “But there’s no pleasing everyone, so I think we would still see somewhat disheartening discontinuation rates. The reasons for discontinuation, however, might be less typified by concerns about safety and tolerability.”
 

Still relevant

Commenting on the study, Mia Tova Minen, MD, chief of headache research and associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, noted that although CaMEO is an older study, its results are still highly relevant.

“Unfortunately, primary care providers are still uncomfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications, and this accounts for the large percentage [of patients] with migraine who, while eligible for migraine preventive therapy, are not offered it,” she said.

Although the public and primary care physicians are now more aware of preventive treatments for migraine, “the number of people offered migraine preventive medication still needs to increase dramatically,” said Dr. Minen.

The American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines for migraine prevention were published in 2012 and are currently being updated. The updated guidelines may include new evidence for candesartan and emerging treatments, such as melatonin and aerobic exercise.

“It is my hope that primary care providers will become more comfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications sooner,” said Dr. Minen.

The current findings suggest a need for additional ways of educating patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapies so that they can advocate for themselves, she added. They also suggest the idea of demanding more insurance coverage of behavioral therapies for migraine, because data indicate that these treatments have long-term efficacy and good safety profiles, said Dr. Minen.
 

An ‘invisible’ disorder

Also commenting on the study, Barbara L. Nye, MD, director of the headache fellowship and codirector of the headache clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said the CaMEO cohort likely is representative of the general population of patients with migraine.

She noted that a significant weakness of the current study is that it examined data collected before the Food and Drug Administration approved monoclonal antibodies and therefore does not reflect patients’ current experience with medications.

“I believe that the attitudes and fears surrounding the use of injectable medication are now likely far less than previously reported, given the positive track record the new generation of once-a-month injectable medications has,” said Dr. Nye.

The findings reinforce the idea that either patients are not talking to their primary care physicians about their headaches and disability or that clinicians are not asking about them, she added. “Both issues are likely linked to the stigma that this disease state has surrounding it. This is an invisible neurological disorder to most,” Dr. Nye said.

The study was sponsored by Allergan before it was acquired by AbbVie. Dr. Nahas has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker for AbbVie/Allergan, Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel, Nesos Corp, Supernus, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano. She has not received and will not receive monetary compensation for this research. Dr. Minen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Few patients with migraine receive or are offered preventive therapy, leaving a significant treatment gap in this patient population, new research suggests. Investigators found that among patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapy, more than a third were not offered this option. In addition, fewer than 10% were currently taking preventive medication, and an additional 10% had discontinued preventive therapy.

“We confirmed that as of 2012 to 2013 – the years these data were collected from a large, comprehensive survey – gaps in care remained,” said study investigator Stephanie J. Nahas, MD, director of the headache medicine fellowship program, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “In this preventive-eligible population, 35% reported never even being offered preventive medication.”

Furthermore, only 28% of patients taking preventive medication experienced a reduction in headache frequency to less than 4 days per month, which is a primary goal of treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Disease burden, as measured with scales of disability and affective comorbidities, remained substantial.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.


 

Lack of efficacy?

In 2019, the American Headache Society published a position statement recommending that preventive treatment be considered for patients who have migraine and four or more monthly headache days (MHDs), regardless of their level of associated disability. However, previous data suggest few patients who are eligible for preventive treatment receive it. In addition, many who have used preventive medications do not adhere to their regimens because of problems with tolerability, efficacy, or both.

To identify treatment gaps and characterize self-reported use of preventive medications for migraine, the investigators examined data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a web-based survey conducted in a representative U.S. sample from September 2012 through November 2013.

The survey identified and characterized patients who met modified criteria for migraine consistent with those in ICHD-3. The researchers classified respondents who had migraine and four or more MHDs as potentially eligible for migraine preventive treatment.

The investigators assessed the study population’s use of oral preventive medications, migraine-related disability and burden, willingness to take preventive treatment, and reasons for discontinuation.

Assessments included the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 for depression, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, the Migraine Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, and the Migraine Symptom Severity Scale.

In all, 16,789 respondents met criteria for migraine, and 6,579 (39.2%) reported having at least four MHDs. The median age of this subgroup that was eligible for preventive treatment was 40.3 years, and approximately 79% were women.

Only 9.8% of respondents who were eligible for preventive medications were currently using an oral preventive medication. Among those who had ever tried an oral preventive medication, 53.6% discontinued it. Efficacy for patients who used medications appeared to be inadequate. Among all current users of preventive treatment, 68.4% continued to have at least four MHDs.

The researchers assessed treatment eligibility among patients not taking preventive medication. Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 35.7% were eligible to receive it. Among all users who had discontinued preventive medication, 61.0% were still eligible to receive it.
 

Attitudes toward injectables

Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 64.3% had zero to three MHDs. The remaining 35.7% had 4-7, 8-14, or 15 or more MHDs. Among current users of preventive treatments, 68.4% had four or more MHDs. Among those who had discontinued preventive treatment, 61.0% had four or more MHDs.

Patients who have never used preventive medication “have substantial management gaps,” said Dr. Nahas. High proportions of these patients have moderate or severe disability (64.7%), depression (43%), and anxiety (39%). The rates of these outcomes are higher in users who discontinued treatment, likely because of confounding by indication, she added.

The prevalence of anxiety was similar between those who currently used, formerly used, or never used preventive medications. However, there were differences between never-users and current or former users with respect to moderate to severe depression (never-users, 43%; current users, 49.4%; discontinued users, 46.5%) and moderate to severe disability (never-users, 64.7%; current users, 80.4%; discontinued users, 78.9%).

In all, 44.6% of those who discontinued preventive therapy reported safety and tolerability problems as reasons for stopping treatment. In addition, 39.7% reported that these medications did not prevent enough headaches. Some patients reported partial or temporary efficacy as a reason for discontinuation. Other reasons were related to health care costs and access and personal preferences. Only 9.2% of patients who discontinued treatment said that their headaches improved enough to stop medication.

The investigators also analyzed respondents’ interest in preventive therapies. Among respondents who had never used preventive therapies, 61.8% of those who were eligible to use them were somewhat or very interested in trying an oral prescription medication for migraine prevention. However, 59.1% of never-users who were eligible for preventive medications were not at all interested, not sure, or needed more information about trying an injectable preventive medication. About 40% were not at all interested in injectables. In general, current users and those who had discontinued medication were more interested in preventive medication, including injectables.
 

‘Disheartening’ discontinuation rates

There are likely multiple reasons for the low rate of migraine prevention treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Many people with migraine never consult a clinician, owing to factors such as stigma, cost, lack of access, and lack of awareness. In addition, patients with migraine are frequently misdiagnosed, she added.

“Other data suggest that only about a quarter of people with episodic migraine and under 5% of people with chronic migraine consult a clinician, receive an accurate diagnosis, and are prescribed appropriate therapy,” said Dr. Nahas.

When the data in this analysis were gathered, public awareness of migraine was much lower than it is today, and injectable migraine therapies had not gained broad acceptance, she noted. Dr. Nahas added it is possible that attitudes toward injectable preventive medications have changed.

“Would people still prefer daily oral medications? We can’t know for sure until we start asking,” she said. In addition, scientific advances and educational outreach have increased clinicians’ awareness, interest, and skill regarding injectable medications, she said.

“I would certainly hope to see that a much greater proportion of preventive-eligible persons with migraine were at least offered, if not currently taking, preventive medication,” said Dr. Nahas. “But there’s no pleasing everyone, so I think we would still see somewhat disheartening discontinuation rates. The reasons for discontinuation, however, might be less typified by concerns about safety and tolerability.”
 

Still relevant

Commenting on the study, Mia Tova Minen, MD, chief of headache research and associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, noted that although CaMEO is an older study, its results are still highly relevant.

“Unfortunately, primary care providers are still uncomfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications, and this accounts for the large percentage [of patients] with migraine who, while eligible for migraine preventive therapy, are not offered it,” she said.

Although the public and primary care physicians are now more aware of preventive treatments for migraine, “the number of people offered migraine preventive medication still needs to increase dramatically,” said Dr. Minen.

The American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines for migraine prevention were published in 2012 and are currently being updated. The updated guidelines may include new evidence for candesartan and emerging treatments, such as melatonin and aerobic exercise.

“It is my hope that primary care providers will become more comfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications sooner,” said Dr. Minen.

The current findings suggest a need for additional ways of educating patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapies so that they can advocate for themselves, she added. They also suggest the idea of demanding more insurance coverage of behavioral therapies for migraine, because data indicate that these treatments have long-term efficacy and good safety profiles, said Dr. Minen.
 

An ‘invisible’ disorder

Also commenting on the study, Barbara L. Nye, MD, director of the headache fellowship and codirector of the headache clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said the CaMEO cohort likely is representative of the general population of patients with migraine.

She noted that a significant weakness of the current study is that it examined data collected before the Food and Drug Administration approved monoclonal antibodies and therefore does not reflect patients’ current experience with medications.

“I believe that the attitudes and fears surrounding the use of injectable medication are now likely far less than previously reported, given the positive track record the new generation of once-a-month injectable medications has,” said Dr. Nye.

The findings reinforce the idea that either patients are not talking to their primary care physicians about their headaches and disability or that clinicians are not asking about them, she added. “Both issues are likely linked to the stigma that this disease state has surrounding it. This is an invisible neurological disorder to most,” Dr. Nye said.

The study was sponsored by Allergan before it was acquired by AbbVie. Dr. Nahas has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker for AbbVie/Allergan, Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel, Nesos Corp, Supernus, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano. She has not received and will not receive monetary compensation for this research. Dr. Minen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Few patients with migraine receive or are offered preventive therapy, leaving a significant treatment gap in this patient population, new research suggests. Investigators found that among patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapy, more than a third were not offered this option. In addition, fewer than 10% were currently taking preventive medication, and an additional 10% had discontinued preventive therapy.

“We confirmed that as of 2012 to 2013 – the years these data were collected from a large, comprehensive survey – gaps in care remained,” said study investigator Stephanie J. Nahas, MD, director of the headache medicine fellowship program, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “In this preventive-eligible population, 35% reported never even being offered preventive medication.”

Furthermore, only 28% of patients taking preventive medication experienced a reduction in headache frequency to less than 4 days per month, which is a primary goal of treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Disease burden, as measured with scales of disability and affective comorbidities, remained substantial.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.


 

Lack of efficacy?

In 2019, the American Headache Society published a position statement recommending that preventive treatment be considered for patients who have migraine and four or more monthly headache days (MHDs), regardless of their level of associated disability. However, previous data suggest few patients who are eligible for preventive treatment receive it. In addition, many who have used preventive medications do not adhere to their regimens because of problems with tolerability, efficacy, or both.

To identify treatment gaps and characterize self-reported use of preventive medications for migraine, the investigators examined data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a web-based survey conducted in a representative U.S. sample from September 2012 through November 2013.

The survey identified and characterized patients who met modified criteria for migraine consistent with those in ICHD-3. The researchers classified respondents who had migraine and four or more MHDs as potentially eligible for migraine preventive treatment.

The investigators assessed the study population’s use of oral preventive medications, migraine-related disability and burden, willingness to take preventive treatment, and reasons for discontinuation.

Assessments included the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 for depression, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, the Migraine Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, and the Migraine Symptom Severity Scale.

In all, 16,789 respondents met criteria for migraine, and 6,579 (39.2%) reported having at least four MHDs. The median age of this subgroup that was eligible for preventive treatment was 40.3 years, and approximately 79% were women.

Only 9.8% of respondents who were eligible for preventive medications were currently using an oral preventive medication. Among those who had ever tried an oral preventive medication, 53.6% discontinued it. Efficacy for patients who used medications appeared to be inadequate. Among all current users of preventive treatment, 68.4% continued to have at least four MHDs.

The researchers assessed treatment eligibility among patients not taking preventive medication. Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 35.7% were eligible to receive it. Among all users who had discontinued preventive medication, 61.0% were still eligible to receive it.
 

Attitudes toward injectables

Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 64.3% had zero to three MHDs. The remaining 35.7% had 4-7, 8-14, or 15 or more MHDs. Among current users of preventive treatments, 68.4% had four or more MHDs. Among those who had discontinued preventive treatment, 61.0% had four or more MHDs.

Patients who have never used preventive medication “have substantial management gaps,” said Dr. Nahas. High proportions of these patients have moderate or severe disability (64.7%), depression (43%), and anxiety (39%). The rates of these outcomes are higher in users who discontinued treatment, likely because of confounding by indication, she added.

The prevalence of anxiety was similar between those who currently used, formerly used, or never used preventive medications. However, there were differences between never-users and current or former users with respect to moderate to severe depression (never-users, 43%; current users, 49.4%; discontinued users, 46.5%) and moderate to severe disability (never-users, 64.7%; current users, 80.4%; discontinued users, 78.9%).

In all, 44.6% of those who discontinued preventive therapy reported safety and tolerability problems as reasons for stopping treatment. In addition, 39.7% reported that these medications did not prevent enough headaches. Some patients reported partial or temporary efficacy as a reason for discontinuation. Other reasons were related to health care costs and access and personal preferences. Only 9.2% of patients who discontinued treatment said that their headaches improved enough to stop medication.

The investigators also analyzed respondents’ interest in preventive therapies. Among respondents who had never used preventive therapies, 61.8% of those who were eligible to use them were somewhat or very interested in trying an oral prescription medication for migraine prevention. However, 59.1% of never-users who were eligible for preventive medications were not at all interested, not sure, or needed more information about trying an injectable preventive medication. About 40% were not at all interested in injectables. In general, current users and those who had discontinued medication were more interested in preventive medication, including injectables.
 

‘Disheartening’ discontinuation rates

There are likely multiple reasons for the low rate of migraine prevention treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Many people with migraine never consult a clinician, owing to factors such as stigma, cost, lack of access, and lack of awareness. In addition, patients with migraine are frequently misdiagnosed, she added.

“Other data suggest that only about a quarter of people with episodic migraine and under 5% of people with chronic migraine consult a clinician, receive an accurate diagnosis, and are prescribed appropriate therapy,” said Dr. Nahas.

When the data in this analysis were gathered, public awareness of migraine was much lower than it is today, and injectable migraine therapies had not gained broad acceptance, she noted. Dr. Nahas added it is possible that attitudes toward injectable preventive medications have changed.

“Would people still prefer daily oral medications? We can’t know for sure until we start asking,” she said. In addition, scientific advances and educational outreach have increased clinicians’ awareness, interest, and skill regarding injectable medications, she said.

“I would certainly hope to see that a much greater proportion of preventive-eligible persons with migraine were at least offered, if not currently taking, preventive medication,” said Dr. Nahas. “But there’s no pleasing everyone, so I think we would still see somewhat disheartening discontinuation rates. The reasons for discontinuation, however, might be less typified by concerns about safety and tolerability.”
 

Still relevant

Commenting on the study, Mia Tova Minen, MD, chief of headache research and associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, noted that although CaMEO is an older study, its results are still highly relevant.

“Unfortunately, primary care providers are still uncomfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications, and this accounts for the large percentage [of patients] with migraine who, while eligible for migraine preventive therapy, are not offered it,” she said.

Although the public and primary care physicians are now more aware of preventive treatments for migraine, “the number of people offered migraine preventive medication still needs to increase dramatically,” said Dr. Minen.

The American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines for migraine prevention were published in 2012 and are currently being updated. The updated guidelines may include new evidence for candesartan and emerging treatments, such as melatonin and aerobic exercise.

“It is my hope that primary care providers will become more comfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications sooner,” said Dr. Minen.

The current findings suggest a need for additional ways of educating patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapies so that they can advocate for themselves, she added. They also suggest the idea of demanding more insurance coverage of behavioral therapies for migraine, because data indicate that these treatments have long-term efficacy and good safety profiles, said Dr. Minen.
 

An ‘invisible’ disorder

Also commenting on the study, Barbara L. Nye, MD, director of the headache fellowship and codirector of the headache clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said the CaMEO cohort likely is representative of the general population of patients with migraine.

She noted that a significant weakness of the current study is that it examined data collected before the Food and Drug Administration approved monoclonal antibodies and therefore does not reflect patients’ current experience with medications.

“I believe that the attitudes and fears surrounding the use of injectable medication are now likely far less than previously reported, given the positive track record the new generation of once-a-month injectable medications has,” said Dr. Nye.

The findings reinforce the idea that either patients are not talking to their primary care physicians about their headaches and disability or that clinicians are not asking about them, she added. “Both issues are likely linked to the stigma that this disease state has surrounding it. This is an invisible neurological disorder to most,” Dr. Nye said.

The study was sponsored by Allergan before it was acquired by AbbVie. Dr. Nahas has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker for AbbVie/Allergan, Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel, Nesos Corp, Supernus, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano. She has not received and will not receive monetary compensation for this research. Dr. Minen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s technologically advanced deep brain stimulation (DBS) system designed to more precisely target motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease, dystonia, or essential tremor.

The SenSight Directional Lead System for DBS therapy combines two recent advancements: sensing capability that allows real-time monitoring of brain signals to optimize settings for stimulation, and a “directional lead” that enables steering of electric current for more precise targeting of stimulation through the electrode.

“Until now, sensing capability and directional leads have not been available in the same DBS system, so we have had to choose one technology or the other, based on the predicted needs of each patient,” neurosurgeon Kelly Foote, MD, who performed the first implant of the SenSight System at University of Florida (UF) Health, said in a news release.

“Now, by coupling this new directional lead with a pulse generator capable of brain sensing, we are excited to be able to offer our patients the synergistic benefits of both technologies,” added Dr. Foote, codirector of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at UF Health.

Dr. Foote said DBS systems capable of adjusting therapeutic stimulation in response to continuously recorded brain signals may lead to better DBS outcomes with fewer adverse effects.

“Adding a directional lead to such a system will improve our ability to localize abnormal signals and enable us to steer current more effectively to areas in the brain where it is most beneficial,” Dr. Foote said.

“We are excited to see the clinical benefits that the new SenSight directional lead system will provide to patients and physicians in the U.S.,” added Mike Daly, vice president and general manager of brain modulation at Medtronic.

Medtronic’s SenSight directional lead DBS system received CE Mark approval in Europe in March.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s technologically advanced deep brain stimulation (DBS) system designed to more precisely target motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease, dystonia, or essential tremor.

The SenSight Directional Lead System for DBS therapy combines two recent advancements: sensing capability that allows real-time monitoring of brain signals to optimize settings for stimulation, and a “directional lead” that enables steering of electric current for more precise targeting of stimulation through the electrode.

“Until now, sensing capability and directional leads have not been available in the same DBS system, so we have had to choose one technology or the other, based on the predicted needs of each patient,” neurosurgeon Kelly Foote, MD, who performed the first implant of the SenSight System at University of Florida (UF) Health, said in a news release.

“Now, by coupling this new directional lead with a pulse generator capable of brain sensing, we are excited to be able to offer our patients the synergistic benefits of both technologies,” added Dr. Foote, codirector of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at UF Health.

Dr. Foote said DBS systems capable of adjusting therapeutic stimulation in response to continuously recorded brain signals may lead to better DBS outcomes with fewer adverse effects.

“Adding a directional lead to such a system will improve our ability to localize abnormal signals and enable us to steer current more effectively to areas in the brain where it is most beneficial,” Dr. Foote said.

“We are excited to see the clinical benefits that the new SenSight directional lead system will provide to patients and physicians in the U.S.,” added Mike Daly, vice president and general manager of brain modulation at Medtronic.

Medtronic’s SenSight directional lead DBS system received CE Mark approval in Europe in March.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s technologically advanced deep brain stimulation (DBS) system designed to more precisely target motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease, dystonia, or essential tremor.

The SenSight Directional Lead System for DBS therapy combines two recent advancements: sensing capability that allows real-time monitoring of brain signals to optimize settings for stimulation, and a “directional lead” that enables steering of electric current for more precise targeting of stimulation through the electrode.

“Until now, sensing capability and directional leads have not been available in the same DBS system, so we have had to choose one technology or the other, based on the predicted needs of each patient,” neurosurgeon Kelly Foote, MD, who performed the first implant of the SenSight System at University of Florida (UF) Health, said in a news release.

“Now, by coupling this new directional lead with a pulse generator capable of brain sensing, we are excited to be able to offer our patients the synergistic benefits of both technologies,” added Dr. Foote, codirector of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at UF Health.

Dr. Foote said DBS systems capable of adjusting therapeutic stimulation in response to continuously recorded brain signals may lead to better DBS outcomes with fewer adverse effects.

“Adding a directional lead to such a system will improve our ability to localize abnormal signals and enable us to steer current more effectively to areas in the brain where it is most beneficial,” Dr. Foote said.

“We are excited to see the clinical benefits that the new SenSight directional lead system will provide to patients and physicians in the U.S.,” added Mike Daly, vice president and general manager of brain modulation at Medtronic.

Medtronic’s SenSight directional lead DBS system received CE Mark approval in Europe in March.
 

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

The improved Los Angeles medical dispatch system prompted more callers with limited English proficiency to initiate telecommunicator-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (T-CPR), compared with the previous system, a new study shows.

Chalabala/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The Los Angeles Tiered Dispatch System (LA-TDS), adopted in late 2014, used simplified questions aimed at identifying cardiac arrest, compared with the city’s earlier Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS).

The result was substantially decreased call processing times, decreased “undertriage” of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and improved overall T-CPR rates (Resuscitation. 2020 Oct;155:74-81).

But now, a secondary analysis of the data shows there was a much higher jump in T-CPR rates among a small subset of callers with limited English proficiency, compared with those proficient in English (JAMA Network Open. 2021;4[6]:e216827).

“This was an unanticipated, significant, and disproportionate change, but fortunately a very good change,” lead author Stephen Sanko, MD, said in an interview.

While the T-CPR rate among English-proficient callers increased from 55% with the MPDS to 67% with the LA-TDS (odds ratio, 1.66; P = .007), it rose from 28% to 69% (OR, 5.66; P = .003) among callers with limited English proficiency. In the adjusted analysis, the new LA-TDS was associated with a 69% higher prevalence of T-CPR among English-proficient callers, compared with a 350% greater prevalence among callers with limited English proficiency.

“The emergency communication process between a caller and 911 telecommunicator is more complex than we thought, and likely constitutes a unique subsubspecialty that interacts with fields as diverse as medicine, health equity, linguistics, sociology, consumer behavior and others,” said Dr. Sanko, who is from the division of emergency medical services at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

“Yet in spite of this complexity, we’re starting to be able to reproducibly classify elements of the emergency conversation that we believe are tied to outcomes we all care about. ... Modulators of health disparities are present as early as the dispatch conversation, and, importantly, they can be intervened upon to promote improved outcomes,” he continued.

The retrospective cohort study was a predefined secondary analysis of a previously published study comparing telecommunicator management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest over 3 months with the MPDS versus 3 months with the LA-TDS. The primary outcome was the number of patients who received telecommunicator-assisted chest compressions from callers with limited English proficiency.

Of the 597 emergency calls that met the inclusion criteria, 289 (48%) were in the MPDS cohort and 308 (52%) were in the LA-TDS cohort. In the MPDS cohort, 263 callers had English proficiency and 26 had limited proficiency; in the latter cohort, those figures were 273 and 35, respectively.

There were no significant differences between cohorts in the use of real-time translation services, which were employed 27%-31% of the time.

The reason for the overall T-CPR improvement is likely that the LA-TDS was tailored to the community needs, said Dr. Sanko. “Most people, including doctors, think of 911 dispatch as something simple and straightforward, like ordering a pizza or calling a ride share. [But] LA-TDS is a ‘home grown’ dispatch system whose structure, questions, and emergency instructions were all developed by EMS medical directors and telecommunicators with extensive experience in our community.”

That being said, the researchers acknowledge that the reason behind the bigger T-CPR boost in LEP callers remains unclear. Although the link between language and system was statistically significant, they noted “it was not an a priori hypothesis and appeared to be largely attributable to the low T-CPR rates for callers with limited English proficiency using MPDS.” Additionally, such callers were “remarkably under-represented” in the sample, “which included approximately 600 calls over two quarters in a large city,” said Dr Sanko.

“We hypothesize that a more direct structure, earlier commitment to treating patients with abnormal life status indicators as being suspected cardiac arrest cases, and earlier reassurance may have improved caller confidence that telecommunicators knew what they were doing. This in turn may have translated into an increased likelihood of bystander caller willingness to perform immediate life-saving maneuvers.”

Despite a number of limitations, “the study is important and highlights instructive topics for discussion that suggest potential next-step opportunities,” noted Richard Chocron, MD, PhD, Miranda Lewis, MD, and Thomas Rea, MD, MPH, in an invited commentary that accompanied the publication. Dr. Chocron is from the Paris University, Paris Research Cardiovascular Center, INSERM; Dr. Lewis is from the Georges Pompidou European Hospital in Paris; and Dr. Rea is from the Division of Emergency Medical Services, Public Health–Seattle & King County. Both Dr. Lewis and Dr. Rea are also at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“Sanko et al. found that approximately 10% of all emergency calls were classified as limited English proficiency calls in a community in which 19% of the population was considered to have limited English proficiency,” they added. “This finding suggests the possibility that populations with limited English proficiency are less likely to activate 911 for incidence of cardiac arrest. If true, this finding would compound the health disparity observed among those with limited English proficiency. This topic is important in that it transcends the role of EMS personnel and engages a broad spectrum of societal stakeholders. We must listen, learn, and ultimately deliver public safety resources to groups who have not been well served by conventional approaches.”

None of the authors or editorialists reported any conflicts of interest.

The improved Los Angeles medical dispatch system prompted more callers with limited English proficiency to initiate telecommunicator-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (T-CPR), compared with the previous system, a new study shows.

Chalabala/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The Los Angeles Tiered Dispatch System (LA-TDS), adopted in late 2014, used simplified questions aimed at identifying cardiac arrest, compared with the city’s earlier Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS).

The result was substantially decreased call processing times, decreased “undertriage” of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and improved overall T-CPR rates (Resuscitation. 2020 Oct;155:74-81).

But now, a secondary analysis of the data shows there was a much higher jump in T-CPR rates among a small subset of callers with limited English proficiency, compared with those proficient in English (JAMA Network Open. 2021;4[6]:e216827).

“This was an unanticipated, significant, and disproportionate change, but fortunately a very good change,” lead author Stephen Sanko, MD, said in an interview.

While the T-CPR rate among English-proficient callers increased from 55% with the MPDS to 67% with the LA-TDS (odds ratio, 1.66; P = .007), it rose from 28% to 69% (OR, 5.66; P = .003) among callers with limited English proficiency. In the adjusted analysis, the new LA-TDS was associated with a 69% higher prevalence of T-CPR among English-proficient callers, compared with a 350% greater prevalence among callers with limited English proficiency.

“The emergency communication process between a caller and 911 telecommunicator is more complex than we thought, and likely constitutes a unique subsubspecialty that interacts with fields as diverse as medicine, health equity, linguistics, sociology, consumer behavior and others,” said Dr. Sanko, who is from the division of emergency medical services at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

“Yet in spite of this complexity, we’re starting to be able to reproducibly classify elements of the emergency conversation that we believe are tied to outcomes we all care about. ... Modulators of health disparities are present as early as the dispatch conversation, and, importantly, they can be intervened upon to promote improved outcomes,” he continued.

The retrospective cohort study was a predefined secondary analysis of a previously published study comparing telecommunicator management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest over 3 months with the MPDS versus 3 months with the LA-TDS. The primary outcome was the number of patients who received telecommunicator-assisted chest compressions from callers with limited English proficiency.

Of the 597 emergency calls that met the inclusion criteria, 289 (48%) were in the MPDS cohort and 308 (52%) were in the LA-TDS cohort. In the MPDS cohort, 263 callers had English proficiency and 26 had limited proficiency; in the latter cohort, those figures were 273 and 35, respectively.

There were no significant differences between cohorts in the use of real-time translation services, which were employed 27%-31% of the time.

The reason for the overall T-CPR improvement is likely that the LA-TDS was tailored to the community needs, said Dr. Sanko. “Most people, including doctors, think of 911 dispatch as something simple and straightforward, like ordering a pizza or calling a ride share. [But] LA-TDS is a ‘home grown’ dispatch system whose structure, questions, and emergency instructions were all developed by EMS medical directors and telecommunicators with extensive experience in our community.”

That being said, the researchers acknowledge that the reason behind the bigger T-CPR boost in LEP callers remains unclear. Although the link between language and system was statistically significant, they noted “it was not an a priori hypothesis and appeared to be largely attributable to the low T-CPR rates for callers with limited English proficiency using MPDS.” Additionally, such callers were “remarkably under-represented” in the sample, “which included approximately 600 calls over two quarters in a large city,” said Dr Sanko.

“We hypothesize that a more direct structure, earlier commitment to treating patients with abnormal life status indicators as being suspected cardiac arrest cases, and earlier reassurance may have improved caller confidence that telecommunicators knew what they were doing. This in turn may have translated into an increased likelihood of bystander caller willingness to perform immediate life-saving maneuvers.”

Despite a number of limitations, “the study is important and highlights instructive topics for discussion that suggest potential next-step opportunities,” noted Richard Chocron, MD, PhD, Miranda Lewis, MD, and Thomas Rea, MD, MPH, in an invited commentary that accompanied the publication. Dr. Chocron is from the Paris University, Paris Research Cardiovascular Center, INSERM; Dr. Lewis is from the Georges Pompidou European Hospital in Paris; and Dr. Rea is from the Division of Emergency Medical Services, Public Health–Seattle & King County. Both Dr. Lewis and Dr. Rea are also at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“Sanko et al. found that approximately 10% of all emergency calls were classified as limited English proficiency calls in a community in which 19% of the population was considered to have limited English proficiency,” they added. “This finding suggests the possibility that populations with limited English proficiency are less likely to activate 911 for incidence of cardiac arrest. If true, this finding would compound the health disparity observed among those with limited English proficiency. This topic is important in that it transcends the role of EMS personnel and engages a broad spectrum of societal stakeholders. We must listen, learn, and ultimately deliver public safety resources to groups who have not been well served by conventional approaches.”

None of the authors or editorialists reported any conflicts of interest.

The improved Los Angeles medical dispatch system prompted more callers with limited English proficiency to initiate telecommunicator-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (T-CPR), compared with the previous system, a new study shows.

Chalabala/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The Los Angeles Tiered Dispatch System (LA-TDS), adopted in late 2014, used simplified questions aimed at identifying cardiac arrest, compared with the city’s earlier Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS).

The result was substantially decreased call processing times, decreased “undertriage” of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and improved overall T-CPR rates (Resuscitation. 2020 Oct;155:74-81).

But now, a secondary analysis of the data shows there was a much higher jump in T-CPR rates among a small subset of callers with limited English proficiency, compared with those proficient in English (JAMA Network Open. 2021;4[6]:e216827).

“This was an unanticipated, significant, and disproportionate change, but fortunately a very good change,” lead author Stephen Sanko, MD, said in an interview.

While the T-CPR rate among English-proficient callers increased from 55% with the MPDS to 67% with the LA-TDS (odds ratio, 1.66; P = .007), it rose from 28% to 69% (OR, 5.66; P = .003) among callers with limited English proficiency. In the adjusted analysis, the new LA-TDS was associated with a 69% higher prevalence of T-CPR among English-proficient callers, compared with a 350% greater prevalence among callers with limited English proficiency.

“The emergency communication process between a caller and 911 telecommunicator is more complex than we thought, and likely constitutes a unique subsubspecialty that interacts with fields as diverse as medicine, health equity, linguistics, sociology, consumer behavior and others,” said Dr. Sanko, who is from the division of emergency medical services at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

“Yet in spite of this complexity, we’re starting to be able to reproducibly classify elements of the emergency conversation that we believe are tied to outcomes we all care about. ... Modulators of health disparities are present as early as the dispatch conversation, and, importantly, they can be intervened upon to promote improved outcomes,” he continued.

The retrospective cohort study was a predefined secondary analysis of a previously published study comparing telecommunicator management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest over 3 months with the MPDS versus 3 months with the LA-TDS. The primary outcome was the number of patients who received telecommunicator-assisted chest compressions from callers with limited English proficiency.

Of the 597 emergency calls that met the inclusion criteria, 289 (48%) were in the MPDS cohort and 308 (52%) were in the LA-TDS cohort. In the MPDS cohort, 263 callers had English proficiency and 26 had limited proficiency; in the latter cohort, those figures were 273 and 35, respectively.

There were no significant differences between cohorts in the use of real-time translation services, which were employed 27%-31% of the time.

The reason for the overall T-CPR improvement is likely that the LA-TDS was tailored to the community needs, said Dr. Sanko. “Most people, including doctors, think of 911 dispatch as something simple and straightforward, like ordering a pizza or calling a ride share. [But] LA-TDS is a ‘home grown’ dispatch system whose structure, questions, and emergency instructions were all developed by EMS medical directors and telecommunicators with extensive experience in our community.”

That being said, the researchers acknowledge that the reason behind the bigger T-CPR boost in LEP callers remains unclear. Although the link between language and system was statistically significant, they noted “it was not an a priori hypothesis and appeared to be largely attributable to the low T-CPR rates for callers with limited English proficiency using MPDS.” Additionally, such callers were “remarkably under-represented” in the sample, “which included approximately 600 calls over two quarters in a large city,” said Dr Sanko.

“We hypothesize that a more direct structure, earlier commitment to treating patients with abnormal life status indicators as being suspected cardiac arrest cases, and earlier reassurance may have improved caller confidence that telecommunicators knew what they were doing. This in turn may have translated into an increased likelihood of bystander caller willingness to perform immediate life-saving maneuvers.”

Despite a number of limitations, “the study is important and highlights instructive topics for discussion that suggest potential next-step opportunities,” noted Richard Chocron, MD, PhD, Miranda Lewis, MD, and Thomas Rea, MD, MPH, in an invited commentary that accompanied the publication. Dr. Chocron is from the Paris University, Paris Research Cardiovascular Center, INSERM; Dr. Lewis is from the Georges Pompidou European Hospital in Paris; and Dr. Rea is from the Division of Emergency Medical Services, Public Health–Seattle & King County. Both Dr. Lewis and Dr. Rea are also at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“Sanko et al. found that approximately 10% of all emergency calls were classified as limited English proficiency calls in a community in which 19% of the population was considered to have limited English proficiency,” they added. “This finding suggests the possibility that populations with limited English proficiency are less likely to activate 911 for incidence of cardiac arrest. If true, this finding would compound the health disparity observed among those with limited English proficiency. This topic is important in that it transcends the role of EMS personnel and engages a broad spectrum of societal stakeholders. We must listen, learn, and ultimately deliver public safety resources to groups who have not been well served by conventional approaches.”

None of the authors or editorialists reported any conflicts of interest.

A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.

The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement. 

Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.

Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.

Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.

Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired. 

Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”

Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances. 

However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.

The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.

Dr. Kesari is scheduled to be sentenced on August 25.

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

A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.

The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement. 

Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.

Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.

Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.

Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired. 

Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”

Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances. 

However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.

The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.

Dr. Kesari is scheduled to be sentenced on August 25.

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

A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.

The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement. 

Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.

Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.

Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.

Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired. 

Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”

Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances. 

However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.

The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.

Dr. Kesari is scheduled to be sentenced on August 25.

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

OnabotulinumtoxinA alone provides relief from chronic migraine, and addition of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies may boost the benefit, according to a large retrospective analysis. The results lend hope that the combination may be synergistic, according to Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad. Dr. Blumenfeld presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. The study was published online April 21 in Pain Therapy.

The retrospective analysis showed a 4-day reduction in headache days per month. In contrast, in the pivotal study for erenumab, the most commonly used anti-CGRP antibody among subjects in the study, showed a 2-day benefit in a subanalysis of patients who had failed at least two oral preventives.

There is mechanistic evidence to suggest the two therapies could be synergistic. OnabotulinumtoxinA is believed to inhibit the release of CGRP, and antibodies reduce CGRP levels. OnabotulinumtoxinA prevents activation of C-fibers in the trigeminal sensory afferents, but does not affect A-delta fibers.

On the other hand, most data indicate that the anti-CGRP antibody fremanezumab prevents activation of A-delta but not C-fibers, and a recent review argues that CGRP antibody nonresponders may have migraines driven by C-fibers or other pathways. “Thus, concomitant use of medications blocking the activation of meningeal C-fibers may provide a synergistic effect on the trigeminal nociceptive pathway,” the authors wrote.
 

Study finding match clinical practice

The results of the new study strengthen the case that the combination is effective, though proof would require prospective, randomized trials. “I think that it really gives credibility to what we are seeing in practice, which is that combined therapy often is much better than therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA alone, said Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Friedman is professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.

The extra 4 migraine-free days per month is a significant benefit, said Stewart Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “It’s an extra month and a half of no disability per year, and that’s on top of what onabotulinumtoxinA does. So it’s really a very important clinical finding,” Dr. Tepper said in an interview.

Improvements with combination therapy

The study was a chart review of 257 patients who started on onabotulinumtoxinA and later initiated anti-CGRP antibody therapy. A total of 104 completed four visits after initiation of anti-CGRP antibody therapy (completers). Before starting any therapy, patients reported an average of 21 headache days per month in the overall group, and 22 among completers. That frequency dropped to 12 in both groups after onabotulinumtoxinA therapy (overall group difference, –9 days; 95% confidence interval, –8 to –11 days; completers group difference, –10; 95% CI, –7 to –12 days).

A total of 77.8% of subjects in the overall cohort took erenumab, 16.3% took galcanezumab, and 5.8% took fremanezumab. In the completers cohort, the percentages were 84.5%, 10.7%, and 4.9%, respectively.

Compared with baseline, both completers and noncompleters had clinically significant improvements in disability, as measured by at least a 5-point improvement in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score at the 3-month visit (–5.8 for completers and –6.3 for the overall cohort group), the 6-month visit (–6.6 and –11.1), the 9-month visit (–8.3 and –6.1), and 1 year (–12.7 and –8.4).

At the first visit, 33.0% of completers had at least a 5-point reduction in MIDAS, as did 36.0% of the overall cohort group, and the trend continued at 6 months (39.8% and 45.1%), 9 months (43.7% and 43.7%), and at 1 year (45.3% and 44.8%).

The study was funded by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld has served on advisory boards for Aeon, AbbVie, Amgen, Alder, Biohaven, Teva, Supernus, Promius, Eaglet, and Lilly, and has received funding for speaking from AbbVie, Amgen, Pernix, Supernus, Depomed, Avanir, Promius, Teva, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Theranica. Dr. Tepper has consulted for Teva. Dr. Friedman has been on the advisory board for Allergan, Amgen, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and has received grant support from Allergan and Eli Lilly.

OnabotulinumtoxinA alone provides relief from chronic migraine, and addition of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies may boost the benefit, according to a large retrospective analysis. The results lend hope that the combination may be synergistic, according to Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad. Dr. Blumenfeld presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. The study was published online April 21 in Pain Therapy.

The retrospective analysis showed a 4-day reduction in headache days per month. In contrast, in the pivotal study for erenumab, the most commonly used anti-CGRP antibody among subjects in the study, showed a 2-day benefit in a subanalysis of patients who had failed at least two oral preventives.

There is mechanistic evidence to suggest the two therapies could be synergistic. OnabotulinumtoxinA is believed to inhibit the release of CGRP, and antibodies reduce CGRP levels. OnabotulinumtoxinA prevents activation of C-fibers in the trigeminal sensory afferents, but does not affect A-delta fibers.

On the other hand, most data indicate that the anti-CGRP antibody fremanezumab prevents activation of A-delta but not C-fibers, and a recent review argues that CGRP antibody nonresponders may have migraines driven by C-fibers or other pathways. “Thus, concomitant use of medications blocking the activation of meningeal C-fibers may provide a synergistic effect on the trigeminal nociceptive pathway,” the authors wrote.
 

Study finding match clinical practice

The results of the new study strengthen the case that the combination is effective, though proof would require prospective, randomized trials. “I think that it really gives credibility to what we are seeing in practice, which is that combined therapy often is much better than therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA alone, said Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Friedman is professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.

The extra 4 migraine-free days per month is a significant benefit, said Stewart Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “It’s an extra month and a half of no disability per year, and that’s on top of what onabotulinumtoxinA does. So it’s really a very important clinical finding,” Dr. Tepper said in an interview.

Improvements with combination therapy

The study was a chart review of 257 patients who started on onabotulinumtoxinA and later initiated anti-CGRP antibody therapy. A total of 104 completed four visits after initiation of anti-CGRP antibody therapy (completers). Before starting any therapy, patients reported an average of 21 headache days per month in the overall group, and 22 among completers. That frequency dropped to 12 in both groups after onabotulinumtoxinA therapy (overall group difference, –9 days; 95% confidence interval, –8 to –11 days; completers group difference, –10; 95% CI, –7 to –12 days).

A total of 77.8% of subjects in the overall cohort took erenumab, 16.3% took galcanezumab, and 5.8% took fremanezumab. In the completers cohort, the percentages were 84.5%, 10.7%, and 4.9%, respectively.

Compared with baseline, both completers and noncompleters had clinically significant improvements in disability, as measured by at least a 5-point improvement in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score at the 3-month visit (–5.8 for completers and –6.3 for the overall cohort group), the 6-month visit (–6.6 and –11.1), the 9-month visit (–8.3 and –6.1), and 1 year (–12.7 and –8.4).

At the first visit, 33.0% of completers had at least a 5-point reduction in MIDAS, as did 36.0% of the overall cohort group, and the trend continued at 6 months (39.8% and 45.1%), 9 months (43.7% and 43.7%), and at 1 year (45.3% and 44.8%).

The study was funded by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld has served on advisory boards for Aeon, AbbVie, Amgen, Alder, Biohaven, Teva, Supernus, Promius, Eaglet, and Lilly, and has received funding for speaking from AbbVie, Amgen, Pernix, Supernus, Depomed, Avanir, Promius, Teva, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Theranica. Dr. Tepper has consulted for Teva. Dr. Friedman has been on the advisory board for Allergan, Amgen, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and has received grant support from Allergan and Eli Lilly.

OnabotulinumtoxinA alone provides relief from chronic migraine, and addition of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies may boost the benefit, according to a large retrospective analysis. The results lend hope that the combination may be synergistic, according to Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad. Dr. Blumenfeld presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting. The study was published online April 21 in Pain Therapy.

The retrospective analysis showed a 4-day reduction in headache days per month. In contrast, in the pivotal study for erenumab, the most commonly used anti-CGRP antibody among subjects in the study, showed a 2-day benefit in a subanalysis of patients who had failed at least two oral preventives.

There is mechanistic evidence to suggest the two therapies could be synergistic. OnabotulinumtoxinA is believed to inhibit the release of CGRP, and antibodies reduce CGRP levels. OnabotulinumtoxinA prevents activation of C-fibers in the trigeminal sensory afferents, but does not affect A-delta fibers.

On the other hand, most data indicate that the anti-CGRP antibody fremanezumab prevents activation of A-delta but not C-fibers, and a recent review argues that CGRP antibody nonresponders may have migraines driven by C-fibers or other pathways. “Thus, concomitant use of medications blocking the activation of meningeal C-fibers may provide a synergistic effect on the trigeminal nociceptive pathway,” the authors wrote.
 

Study finding match clinical practice

The results of the new study strengthen the case that the combination is effective, though proof would require prospective, randomized trials. “I think that it really gives credibility to what we are seeing in practice, which is that combined therapy often is much better than therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA alone, said Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Friedman is professor of neurology and ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Dallas.

The extra 4 migraine-free days per month is a significant benefit, said Stewart Tepper, MD, professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “It’s an extra month and a half of no disability per year, and that’s on top of what onabotulinumtoxinA does. So it’s really a very important clinical finding,” Dr. Tepper said in an interview.

Improvements with combination therapy

The study was a chart review of 257 patients who started on onabotulinumtoxinA and later initiated anti-CGRP antibody therapy. A total of 104 completed four visits after initiation of anti-CGRP antibody therapy (completers). Before starting any therapy, patients reported an average of 21 headache days per month in the overall group, and 22 among completers. That frequency dropped to 12 in both groups after onabotulinumtoxinA therapy (overall group difference, –9 days; 95% confidence interval, –8 to –11 days; completers group difference, –10; 95% CI, –7 to –12 days).

A total of 77.8% of subjects in the overall cohort took erenumab, 16.3% took galcanezumab, and 5.8% took fremanezumab. In the completers cohort, the percentages were 84.5%, 10.7%, and 4.9%, respectively.

Compared with baseline, both completers and noncompleters had clinically significant improvements in disability, as measured by at least a 5-point improvement in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score at the 3-month visit (–5.8 for completers and –6.3 for the overall cohort group), the 6-month visit (–6.6 and –11.1), the 9-month visit (–8.3 and –6.1), and 1 year (–12.7 and –8.4).

At the first visit, 33.0% of completers had at least a 5-point reduction in MIDAS, as did 36.0% of the overall cohort group, and the trend continued at 6 months (39.8% and 45.1%), 9 months (43.7% and 43.7%), and at 1 year (45.3% and 44.8%).

The study was funded by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld has served on advisory boards for Aeon, AbbVie, Amgen, Alder, Biohaven, Teva, Supernus, Promius, Eaglet, and Lilly, and has received funding for speaking from AbbVie, Amgen, Pernix, Supernus, Depomed, Avanir, Promius, Teva, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Theranica. Dr. Tepper has consulted for Teva. Dr. Friedman has been on the advisory board for Allergan, Amgen, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and has received grant support from Allergan and Eli Lilly.

Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.

“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.

“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.

The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

‘Striking’ results

Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.

They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).

The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.

About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.

Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.

For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
 

Lightening the load

Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.

“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release. 

Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.

Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.

The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

“The results imply that clinicians who treat patients with schizophrenia may be able to improve cognitive health by reducing cumulative anticholinergic medication burden if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.

“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”

“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.

“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.

“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.

“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.

The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

‘Striking’ results

Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.

They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).

The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.

About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.

Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.

For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
 

Lightening the load

Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.

“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release. 

Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.

Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.

The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

“The results imply that clinicians who treat patients with schizophrenia may be able to improve cognitive health by reducing cumulative anticholinergic medication burden if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.

“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”

“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.

“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anticholinergic medication burden from antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other psychotropics has a cumulative effect of worsening cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia, new research indicates.

“The link between long-term use of anticholinergic medications and cognitive impairment is well-known and growing,” lead researcher Yash Joshi, MD, department of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“While this association is relevant for everyone, it is particularly important for those living with schizophrenia, who often struggle with cognitive difficulties conferred by the illness itself,” said Dr. Joshi.

“Brain health in schizophrenia is a game of inches, and even small negative effects on cognitive functioning through anticholinergic medication burden may have large impacts on patients’ lives,” he added.

The study was published online May 14 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

‘Striking’ results

Dr. Joshi and colleagues set out to comprehensively characterize how the cumulative anticholinergic burden from different classes of medications affect cognition in patients with schizophrenia.

They assessed medical records, including all prescribed medications, for 1,120 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

For each participant, prescribed medications were rated and summed using a modified anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale. Cognitive functioning was assessed by performance on domains of the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (PCNB).

The investigators found that 63% of participants had an ACB score of at least 3, which is “striking,” said Dr. Joshi, given that previous studies have shown that an ACB score of 3 in a healthy, older adult is associated with cognitive dysfunction and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia.

About one-quarter of participants had an ACB score of 6 or higher.

Yet, these high ACB scores are not hard to achieve in routine psychiatric care, the researchers note.

For example, a patient taking olanzapine daily to ease symptoms of psychosis would have an ACB score of 3; if hydroxyzine was added for anxiety or insomnia, the patient’s ACB score would rise to 6, they point out.
 

Lightening the load

Antipsychotics contributed more than half of the anticholinergic burden, while traditional anticholinergics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines accounted for the remainder.

“It is easy even for well-meaning clinicians to inadvertently contribute to anticholinergic medication burden through routine and appropriate care. The unique finding here is that this burden comes from medications we don’t usually think of as typical anticholinergic agents,” senior author Gregory Light, PhD, with University of California, San Diego, said in a news release. 

Anticholinergic medication burden was significantly associated with generalized impairments in cognitive functioning across all cognitive domains on the PCNB with comparable magnitude and after controlling for multiple proxies of functioning or disease severity.

Higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance. The PCNB global cognitive averages for none, low, average, high, and very high anticholinergic burdens were, respectively (in z values), -0.51, -0.70, -0.85, -0.96, and -1.15.

The results suggest “total cumulative anticholinergic burden – rather than anticholinergic burden attributable to a specific antipsychotic or psychotropic medication class – is a key contributor to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

“The results imply that clinicians who treat patients with schizophrenia may be able to improve cognitive health by reducing cumulative anticholinergic medication burden if it is clinically safe and practical,” said Dr. Joshi.

“This may be accomplished by reducing overall polypharmacy or transitioning to equivalent medications with lower overall anticholinergic burden. While ‘traditional’ anticholinergic medications should always be scrutinized, all medications should be carefully evaluated to understand whether they contribute to cumulative anticholinergic medication burden,” he added.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jessica Gannon, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, said the author’s findings “aren’t surprising, but the work that they did was pretty comprehensive [and] further fleshed out some of our concerns about the impact of anticholinergics on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”

“We certainly have to use some of these medications for patients, like antipsychotics that do have some anticholinergic burden associated with them. We don’t really have other options,” Dr. Gannon said.

“But certainly I think this calls us to be better stewards of medication in general. And when we prescribe for comorbid conditions, like depression and anxiety, we should be careful in our prescribing practices, try not to prescribe an anticholinergic medication, and, if they have been prescribed, to deprescribe them,” Dr. Gannon added.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health; the Sidney R. Baer, Jr. Foundation; the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; the VISN-22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Gannon have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleep Medicine A Special Report

• MOBILE PHONE RELIANCE
  How it’s linked to young adults’ sleep problems in two studies
• OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA
  New research validates phenotypes in Latinos 
• DEMENTIA
  Papers show associations between disease and sleep therapies

Sleep Medicine A Special Report

• MOBILE PHONE RELIANCE
  How it’s linked to young adults’ sleep problems in two studies
• OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA
  New research validates phenotypes in Latinos 
• DEMENTIA
  Papers show associations between disease and sleep therapies

Sleep Medicine A Special Report

• MOBILE PHONE RELIANCE
  How it’s linked to young adults’ sleep problems in two studies
• OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA
  New research validates phenotypes in Latinos 
• DEMENTIA
  Papers show associations between disease and sleep therapies

Researchers have discovered a new dopaminergic neural circuit leading to the hindbrain that is involved in satiety (feeling full and eating cessation) in mice, which may eventually lead to new ways to treat obesity.

Moreover, when mice were given methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) – a stimulant approved to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a well-known side effect of decreasing appetite – signals in this dopaminergic pathway were enhanced and the mice ate less.

The study by Yong Han, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues was published online May 27 in Science Advances.

“We identified a new dopamine neural circuit from the midbrain to the hindbrain (brainstem) that regulates feeding behavior through an enhanced satiation response,” senior author Qi Wu, PhD, assistant professor in pediatrics-nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine, summarized in an interview.

The findings suggest that “people with obesity have a compromised dopaminergic neural pathway, presumably in ways that delay the satiation response, which makes them eat more, have a larger meal,” he explained.
 

Newly identified brain circuit plays a key role in satiety response

The study is about a circuit in the brain that helps precisely regulate the size of food portion consumed, Dr. Wu emphasized in a statement from the university, adding that the satiation response is as important as appetite.

Importantly, the results also provide clues about how methylphenidate can lead to weight loss.  

Regulators have deemed that methylphenidate, a controlled substance with other side effects such as anxiety and a fast heart rate, is safe and effective for ADHD, Dr. Wu noted.

He speculated that, “If researchers want to do clinical trials of methylphenidate for obesity, it ultimately could evolve to be an anti-obesity drug, alone or combined with other drugs, or possibly derivatives of methylphenidate could be tested.”

The brain circuit “we discovered is the first to be fully described to regulate portion size via dopamine signaling,” Dr. Han stressed in the statement.

“Our new study shows that a circuit connecting neurons that produce dopamine, a chemical messenger previously known for the regulation of motivation and pleasure, has a new [critical] role in the control of feeding through dynamically regulating the satiety response,” he explained.
 

Brain signals that control portion size 

Earlier studies that investigated how the dopaminergic system may regulate food intake, appetite, and body weight, have produced conflicting results, Dr. Wu said.

The researchers performed several experiments in mice that included the use of cell-specific circuitry mapping, optogenetics, and real-time recordings of brain activity.

They identified a new dopaminergic neural circuit comprised of dopaminergic neurons in the caudal ventral tegmental area (DA-VTA neurons) in the midbrain that directly innervate dopamine receptor D1-expressing neurons within the lateral parabrachial nucleus (DRD1-LPBN neurons) in the hindbrain.

There were four main findings:

• DA-VTA neurons were activated immediately before the cessation of each feeding bout.
• Actively inhibiting DA-VTA neurons before the end of each feeding bout prolonged the feeding.
• Activating DRD1-LPBN neurons inhibited feeding.
• Mice that lacked the DRD1 gene ate much more and gained weight.

“Our study illuminates a hindbrain dopaminergic circuit that controls feeding through dynamic regulation in satiety response and meal structure,” the researchers reiterate.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, NIH Digestive Diseases Center, Pew Charitable Trust, American Diabetes Association, Baylor Collaborative Faculty Research Investment Program, USDA/CRIS, USDA/ARS, American Heart Association, and NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, and by Pew and Kavli scholarships. The researchers have reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

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

Researchers have discovered a new dopaminergic neural circuit leading to the hindbrain that is involved in satiety (feeling full and eating cessation) in mice, which may eventually lead to new ways to treat obesity.

Moreover, when mice were given methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) – a stimulant approved to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a well-known side effect of decreasing appetite – signals in this dopaminergic pathway were enhanced and the mice ate less.

The study by Yong Han, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues was published online May 27 in Science Advances.

“We identified a new dopamine neural circuit from the midbrain to the hindbrain (brainstem) that regulates feeding behavior through an enhanced satiation response,” senior author Qi Wu, PhD, assistant professor in pediatrics-nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine, summarized in an interview.

The findings suggest that “people with obesity have a compromised dopaminergic neural pathway, presumably in ways that delay the satiation response, which makes them eat more, have a larger meal,” he explained.
 

Newly identified brain circuit plays a key role in satiety response

The study is about a circuit in the brain that helps precisely regulate the size of food portion consumed, Dr. Wu emphasized in a statement from the university, adding that the satiation response is as important as appetite.

Importantly, the results also provide clues about how methylphenidate can lead to weight loss.  

Regulators have deemed that methylphenidate, a controlled substance with other side effects such as anxiety and a fast heart rate, is safe and effective for ADHD, Dr. Wu noted.

He speculated that, “If researchers want to do clinical trials of methylphenidate for obesity, it ultimately could evolve to be an anti-obesity drug, alone or combined with other drugs, or possibly derivatives of methylphenidate could be tested.”

The brain circuit “we discovered is the first to be fully described to regulate portion size via dopamine signaling,” Dr. Han stressed in the statement.

“Our new study shows that a circuit connecting neurons that produce dopamine, a chemical messenger previously known for the regulation of motivation and pleasure, has a new [critical] role in the control of feeding through dynamically regulating the satiety response,” he explained.
 

Brain signals that control portion size 

Earlier studies that investigated how the dopaminergic system may regulate food intake, appetite, and body weight, have produced conflicting results, Dr. Wu said.

The researchers performed several experiments in mice that included the use of cell-specific circuitry mapping, optogenetics, and real-time recordings of brain activity.

They identified a new dopaminergic neural circuit comprised of dopaminergic neurons in the caudal ventral tegmental area (DA-VTA neurons) in the midbrain that directly innervate dopamine receptor D1-expressing neurons within the lateral parabrachial nucleus (DRD1-LPBN neurons) in the hindbrain.

There were four main findings:

• DA-VTA neurons were activated immediately before the cessation of each feeding bout.
• Actively inhibiting DA-VTA neurons before the end of each feeding bout prolonged the feeding.
• Activating DRD1-LPBN neurons inhibited feeding.
• Mice that lacked the DRD1 gene ate much more and gained weight.

“Our study illuminates a hindbrain dopaminergic circuit that controls feeding through dynamic regulation in satiety response and meal structure,” the researchers reiterate.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, NIH Digestive Diseases Center, Pew Charitable Trust, American Diabetes Association, Baylor Collaborative Faculty Research Investment Program, USDA/CRIS, USDA/ARS, American Heart Association, and NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, and by Pew and Kavli scholarships. The researchers have reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

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

Researchers have discovered a new dopaminergic neural circuit leading to the hindbrain that is involved in satiety (feeling full and eating cessation) in mice, which may eventually lead to new ways to treat obesity.

Moreover, when mice were given methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) – a stimulant approved to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with a well-known side effect of decreasing appetite – signals in this dopaminergic pathway were enhanced and the mice ate less.

The study by Yong Han, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues was published online May 27 in Science Advances.

“We identified a new dopamine neural circuit from the midbrain to the hindbrain (brainstem) that regulates feeding behavior through an enhanced satiation response,” senior author Qi Wu, PhD, assistant professor in pediatrics-nutrition at Baylor College of Medicine, summarized in an interview.

The findings suggest that “people with obesity have a compromised dopaminergic neural pathway, presumably in ways that delay the satiation response, which makes them eat more, have a larger meal,” he explained.
 

Newly identified brain circuit plays a key role in satiety response

The study is about a circuit in the brain that helps precisely regulate the size of food portion consumed, Dr. Wu emphasized in a statement from the university, adding that the satiation response is as important as appetite.

Importantly, the results also provide clues about how methylphenidate can lead to weight loss.  

Regulators have deemed that methylphenidate, a controlled substance with other side effects such as anxiety and a fast heart rate, is safe and effective for ADHD, Dr. Wu noted.

He speculated that, “If researchers want to do clinical trials of methylphenidate for obesity, it ultimately could evolve to be an anti-obesity drug, alone or combined with other drugs, or possibly derivatives of methylphenidate could be tested.”

The brain circuit “we discovered is the first to be fully described to regulate portion size via dopamine signaling,” Dr. Han stressed in the statement.

“Our new study shows that a circuit connecting neurons that produce dopamine, a chemical messenger previously known for the regulation of motivation and pleasure, has a new [critical] role in the control of feeding through dynamically regulating the satiety response,” he explained.
 

Brain signals that control portion size 

Earlier studies that investigated how the dopaminergic system may regulate food intake, appetite, and body weight, have produced conflicting results, Dr. Wu said.

The researchers performed several experiments in mice that included the use of cell-specific circuitry mapping, optogenetics, and real-time recordings of brain activity.

They identified a new dopaminergic neural circuit comprised of dopaminergic neurons in the caudal ventral tegmental area (DA-VTA neurons) in the midbrain that directly innervate dopamine receptor D1-expressing neurons within the lateral parabrachial nucleus (DRD1-LPBN neurons) in the hindbrain.

There were four main findings:

• DA-VTA neurons were activated immediately before the cessation of each feeding bout.
• Actively inhibiting DA-VTA neurons before the end of each feeding bout prolonged the feeding.
• Activating DRD1-LPBN neurons inhibited feeding.
• Mice that lacked the DRD1 gene ate much more and gained weight.

“Our study illuminates a hindbrain dopaminergic circuit that controls feeding through dynamic regulation in satiety response and meal structure,” the researchers reiterate.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, NIH Digestive Diseases Center, Pew Charitable Trust, American Diabetes Association, Baylor Collaborative Faculty Research Investment Program, USDA/CRIS, USDA/ARS, American Heart Association, and NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, and by Pew and Kavli scholarships. The researchers have reported no relevant financial disclosures. 

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

Almost 50% of patients with migraine hesitate to seek appropriate care, new research shows. A survey of nearly 18,000 participants with migraine showed that 46% were reluctant to consult a physician about their condition. Among those who hesitated, 58% ultimately consulted a physician, but 42% did not.

Common reasons for failure to seek treatment included believing that migraine was not severe enough to warrant a consultation, worries about cost and health insurance, and concern that the health care professional would not take the disorder seriously.

This is the first study to query patients with migraine regarding whether and why they have hesitated to seek care, said coinvestigator Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic sciences and director of the division of headache medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Previous studies have noted differences in care seeking by demographic or other distinguishing characteristics but have not asked people with migraine whether they actually intended to seek or not seek such care,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro presented the findings at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Delays prevent diagnosis and care

For patients with migraine, hesitating to consult a physician causes delays in, and sometimes prevents, receiving a diagnosis and appropriate care.

To assess the proportion of patients who hesitate to seek a consultation for migraine care, as well as reasons for doing so, the investigators examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study. OVERCOME incorporated a prospective web-based survey that was administered to a representative sample of 41,925 individuals in the United States.

Eligible participants who completed the study’s baseline assessment had had at least one migraine attack in the previous year and either met criteria for migraine on the basis of a validated diagnostic screen or provided a self-report of a migraine diagnosis by a health care practitioner. In all, 39,494 participants reported whether they had hesitated to seek a consultation from a physician for migraine care. Of these, 17,951 were included in the analysis.

Among the 46% who hesitated to seek care, 58% ultimately sought migraine care, and 42% did not.

The investigators also examined sociodemographic characteristics and migraine-related data, including the number of monthly headache days and information regarding nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.

Patient-reported outcomes included days with migraine-related disability during the past 3 months, treatment optimization, and the degree to which migraine limited regular activities. Investigators also examined participants’ health care use in the previous 12 months and reasons for hesitating to seek migraine care.
 

Reasons for hesitancy

A total of 17,920 participants provided reasons for hesitating to seek a migraine consultation. These included a desire to take care of migraine attacks on one’s own (45%), the belief that migraine would not be taken seriously (35%), the belief that the migraine attacks were not serious or painful enough (29%), inability to afford or unwillingness to spend money on care (29%), lack of or inadequate health insurance (21%), and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (19%).

Reasons for hesitation differed between participants who ultimately sought a consultation with a physician and those who did not. Those who did not receive a consultation (n = 7,495) were more likely to want to take care of the migraine attacks on their own (48% vs. 43%) and to believe the attacks were not serious or painful enough (36% vs. 25%).

Participants who hesitated but later sought a consultation were more likely to report concerns that migraine would not be taken seriously (38% vs. 31%) and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (22% vs. 15%).

Among those who did not seek a consultation versus those who did, a significantly higher proportion were women (76% vs. 73%; P < .001).

“This is an interesting finding, since prior studies have indicated that, overall, women with migraine are more likely to have consulted a doctor for it – and also more likely to have been diagnosed with it,” Dr. Shapiro said.

On the other hand, women were 30% more likely to visit emergency departments or urgent care clinics for migraine care than men, he noted.

“These findings suggest some women may be experiencing particular barriers to receiving successful consultation care and that they may persistently hesitate to seek it,” said Dr. Shapiro. He noted that these barriers might be financial or attitudinal.

“Women are reported to be less likely to receive treatment for pain conditions, and furthermore, stigma toward migraine in particular may limit its perceived seriousness,” he said.
 

‘Equitable access’ needed

Those with full-time employment were significantly more likely to seek a migraine consultation than were those who were not employed full time (46% vs. 42%; P < .001). Patients who sought care were more likely to have health insurance (87% vs. 78%; P < .001).

Having health insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), having previously received a migraine diagnosis (OR, 2.71), and degree of disability (severe vs. none: OR, 2.76; moderate vs. none: OR, 2.04) were associated with increased likelihood of seeking a migraine consultation among those who initially hesitated. Other factors included being male (OR, 1.49), having nausea (OR, 1.15), or being employed full time (OR, 1.24).

“Taken together, our findings suggest consultation rates may be limited by financial barriers and pervasive attitudes that migraine is either not serious or is untreatable,” said Dr. Shapiro. Consistent with this hypothesis is the finding that individuals with migraine who had received an appropriate diagnosis and were therefore better informed about the condition were more likely to continue to seek care for it, he noted.

Because most outpatient medical encounters for migraine are with primary care practitioners, it may make sense to ensure that such clinicians are “well trained in diagnosing and treating common presentations of migraine,” Dr. Shapiro said. It is equally important to ensure “equitable access to health insurance to pay for these consultations,” he added.
 

‘Take migraine more seriously’

Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was well designed.

Potential weaknesses include the fact that patients were required only to have one migraine attack per year and that not all were diagnosed by a headache specialist using ICHD-3 criteria.

Still, “online, validated, patient-reported data is quite acceptable,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research.

He noted that there is a clear message from the findings for all physicians who see patients with headache disorders: “You will increase the chance of patients consulting and continuing to consult when you make an accurate migraine diagnosis, take migraine more seriously, and understand the stigmas attached to it – and when there are reduced institutional barriers and costs of health care.”

The findings suggest that neurologists should strive to provide patients with ongoing care and medication, he added. In addition, there is a need for further education about the stigma associated with migraine and about how others view this disabling disease, Dr. Rapoport concluded.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Rapoport has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Almost 50% of patients with migraine hesitate to seek appropriate care, new research shows. A survey of nearly 18,000 participants with migraine showed that 46% were reluctant to consult a physician about their condition. Among those who hesitated, 58% ultimately consulted a physician, but 42% did not.

Common reasons for failure to seek treatment included believing that migraine was not severe enough to warrant a consultation, worries about cost and health insurance, and concern that the health care professional would not take the disorder seriously.

This is the first study to query patients with migraine regarding whether and why they have hesitated to seek care, said coinvestigator Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic sciences and director of the division of headache medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Previous studies have noted differences in care seeking by demographic or other distinguishing characteristics but have not asked people with migraine whether they actually intended to seek or not seek such care,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro presented the findings at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Delays prevent diagnosis and care

For patients with migraine, hesitating to consult a physician causes delays in, and sometimes prevents, receiving a diagnosis and appropriate care.

To assess the proportion of patients who hesitate to seek a consultation for migraine care, as well as reasons for doing so, the investigators examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study. OVERCOME incorporated a prospective web-based survey that was administered to a representative sample of 41,925 individuals in the United States.

Eligible participants who completed the study’s baseline assessment had had at least one migraine attack in the previous year and either met criteria for migraine on the basis of a validated diagnostic screen or provided a self-report of a migraine diagnosis by a health care practitioner. In all, 39,494 participants reported whether they had hesitated to seek a consultation from a physician for migraine care. Of these, 17,951 were included in the analysis.

Among the 46% who hesitated to seek care, 58% ultimately sought migraine care, and 42% did not.

The investigators also examined sociodemographic characteristics and migraine-related data, including the number of monthly headache days and information regarding nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.

Patient-reported outcomes included days with migraine-related disability during the past 3 months, treatment optimization, and the degree to which migraine limited regular activities. Investigators also examined participants’ health care use in the previous 12 months and reasons for hesitating to seek migraine care.
 

Reasons for hesitancy

A total of 17,920 participants provided reasons for hesitating to seek a migraine consultation. These included a desire to take care of migraine attacks on one’s own (45%), the belief that migraine would not be taken seriously (35%), the belief that the migraine attacks were not serious or painful enough (29%), inability to afford or unwillingness to spend money on care (29%), lack of or inadequate health insurance (21%), and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (19%).

Reasons for hesitation differed between participants who ultimately sought a consultation with a physician and those who did not. Those who did not receive a consultation (n = 7,495) were more likely to want to take care of the migraine attacks on their own (48% vs. 43%) and to believe the attacks were not serious or painful enough (36% vs. 25%).

Participants who hesitated but later sought a consultation were more likely to report concerns that migraine would not be taken seriously (38% vs. 31%) and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (22% vs. 15%).

Among those who did not seek a consultation versus those who did, a significantly higher proportion were women (76% vs. 73%; P < .001).

“This is an interesting finding, since prior studies have indicated that, overall, women with migraine are more likely to have consulted a doctor for it – and also more likely to have been diagnosed with it,” Dr. Shapiro said.

On the other hand, women were 30% more likely to visit emergency departments or urgent care clinics for migraine care than men, he noted.

“These findings suggest some women may be experiencing particular barriers to receiving successful consultation care and that they may persistently hesitate to seek it,” said Dr. Shapiro. He noted that these barriers might be financial or attitudinal.

“Women are reported to be less likely to receive treatment for pain conditions, and furthermore, stigma toward migraine in particular may limit its perceived seriousness,” he said.
 

‘Equitable access’ needed

Those with full-time employment were significantly more likely to seek a migraine consultation than were those who were not employed full time (46% vs. 42%; P < .001). Patients who sought care were more likely to have health insurance (87% vs. 78%; P < .001).

Having health insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), having previously received a migraine diagnosis (OR, 2.71), and degree of disability (severe vs. none: OR, 2.76; moderate vs. none: OR, 2.04) were associated with increased likelihood of seeking a migraine consultation among those who initially hesitated. Other factors included being male (OR, 1.49), having nausea (OR, 1.15), or being employed full time (OR, 1.24).

“Taken together, our findings suggest consultation rates may be limited by financial barriers and pervasive attitudes that migraine is either not serious or is untreatable,” said Dr. Shapiro. Consistent with this hypothesis is the finding that individuals with migraine who had received an appropriate diagnosis and were therefore better informed about the condition were more likely to continue to seek care for it, he noted.

Because most outpatient medical encounters for migraine are with primary care practitioners, it may make sense to ensure that such clinicians are “well trained in diagnosing and treating common presentations of migraine,” Dr. Shapiro said. It is equally important to ensure “equitable access to health insurance to pay for these consultations,” he added.
 

‘Take migraine more seriously’

Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was well designed.

Potential weaknesses include the fact that patients were required only to have one migraine attack per year and that not all were diagnosed by a headache specialist using ICHD-3 criteria.

Still, “online, validated, patient-reported data is quite acceptable,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research.

He noted that there is a clear message from the findings for all physicians who see patients with headache disorders: “You will increase the chance of patients consulting and continuing to consult when you make an accurate migraine diagnosis, take migraine more seriously, and understand the stigmas attached to it – and when there are reduced institutional barriers and costs of health care.”

The findings suggest that neurologists should strive to provide patients with ongoing care and medication, he added. In addition, there is a need for further education about the stigma associated with migraine and about how others view this disabling disease, Dr. Rapoport concluded.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Rapoport has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Almost 50% of patients with migraine hesitate to seek appropriate care, new research shows. A survey of nearly 18,000 participants with migraine showed that 46% were reluctant to consult a physician about their condition. Among those who hesitated, 58% ultimately consulted a physician, but 42% did not.

Common reasons for failure to seek treatment included believing that migraine was not severe enough to warrant a consultation, worries about cost and health insurance, and concern that the health care professional would not take the disorder seriously.

This is the first study to query patients with migraine regarding whether and why they have hesitated to seek care, said coinvestigator Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic sciences and director of the division of headache medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Previous studies have noted differences in care seeking by demographic or other distinguishing characteristics but have not asked people with migraine whether they actually intended to seek or not seek such care,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro presented the findings at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Delays prevent diagnosis and care

For patients with migraine, hesitating to consult a physician causes delays in, and sometimes prevents, receiving a diagnosis and appropriate care.

To assess the proportion of patients who hesitate to seek a consultation for migraine care, as well as reasons for doing so, the investigators examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study. OVERCOME incorporated a prospective web-based survey that was administered to a representative sample of 41,925 individuals in the United States.

Eligible participants who completed the study’s baseline assessment had had at least one migraine attack in the previous year and either met criteria for migraine on the basis of a validated diagnostic screen or provided a self-report of a migraine diagnosis by a health care practitioner. In all, 39,494 participants reported whether they had hesitated to seek a consultation from a physician for migraine care. Of these, 17,951 were included in the analysis.

Among the 46% who hesitated to seek care, 58% ultimately sought migraine care, and 42% did not.

The investigators also examined sociodemographic characteristics and migraine-related data, including the number of monthly headache days and information regarding nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.

Patient-reported outcomes included days with migraine-related disability during the past 3 months, treatment optimization, and the degree to which migraine limited regular activities. Investigators also examined participants’ health care use in the previous 12 months and reasons for hesitating to seek migraine care.
 

Reasons for hesitancy

A total of 17,920 participants provided reasons for hesitating to seek a migraine consultation. These included a desire to take care of migraine attacks on one’s own (45%), the belief that migraine would not be taken seriously (35%), the belief that the migraine attacks were not serious or painful enough (29%), inability to afford or unwillingness to spend money on care (29%), lack of or inadequate health insurance (21%), and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (19%).

Reasons for hesitation differed between participants who ultimately sought a consultation with a physician and those who did not. Those who did not receive a consultation (n = 7,495) were more likely to want to take care of the migraine attacks on their own (48% vs. 43%) and to believe the attacks were not serious or painful enough (36% vs. 25%).

Participants who hesitated but later sought a consultation were more likely to report concerns that migraine would not be taken seriously (38% vs. 31%) and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (22% vs. 15%).

Among those who did not seek a consultation versus those who did, a significantly higher proportion were women (76% vs. 73%; P < .001).

“This is an interesting finding, since prior studies have indicated that, overall, women with migraine are more likely to have consulted a doctor for it – and also more likely to have been diagnosed with it,” Dr. Shapiro said.

On the other hand, women were 30% more likely to visit emergency departments or urgent care clinics for migraine care than men, he noted.

“These findings suggest some women may be experiencing particular barriers to receiving successful consultation care and that they may persistently hesitate to seek it,” said Dr. Shapiro. He noted that these barriers might be financial or attitudinal.

“Women are reported to be less likely to receive treatment for pain conditions, and furthermore, stigma toward migraine in particular may limit its perceived seriousness,” he said.
 

‘Equitable access’ needed

Those with full-time employment were significantly more likely to seek a migraine consultation than were those who were not employed full time (46% vs. 42%; P < .001). Patients who sought care were more likely to have health insurance (87% vs. 78%; P < .001).

Having health insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), having previously received a migraine diagnosis (OR, 2.71), and degree of disability (severe vs. none: OR, 2.76; moderate vs. none: OR, 2.04) were associated with increased likelihood of seeking a migraine consultation among those who initially hesitated. Other factors included being male (OR, 1.49), having nausea (OR, 1.15), or being employed full time (OR, 1.24).

“Taken together, our findings suggest consultation rates may be limited by financial barriers and pervasive attitudes that migraine is either not serious or is untreatable,” said Dr. Shapiro. Consistent with this hypothesis is the finding that individuals with migraine who had received an appropriate diagnosis and were therefore better informed about the condition were more likely to continue to seek care for it, he noted.

Because most outpatient medical encounters for migraine are with primary care practitioners, it may make sense to ensure that such clinicians are “well trained in diagnosing and treating common presentations of migraine,” Dr. Shapiro said. It is equally important to ensure “equitable access to health insurance to pay for these consultations,” he added.
 

‘Take migraine more seriously’

Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was well designed.

Potential weaknesses include the fact that patients were required only to have one migraine attack per year and that not all were diagnosed by a headache specialist using ICHD-3 criteria.

Still, “online, validated, patient-reported data is quite acceptable,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research.

He noted that there is a clear message from the findings for all physicians who see patients with headache disorders: “You will increase the chance of patients consulting and continuing to consult when you make an accurate migraine diagnosis, take migraine more seriously, and understand the stigmas attached to it – and when there are reduced institutional barriers and costs of health care.”

The findings suggest that neurologists should strive to provide patients with ongoing care and medication, he added. In addition, there is a need for further education about the stigma associated with migraine and about how others view this disabling disease, Dr. Rapoport concluded.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Rapoport has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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