Key clinical point: American adults with higher dietary zinc intake were at a lower risk for migraine, demonstrating an inverse association between dietary zinc intake and migraine.

Major finding: The risk for migraine was significantly lower among participants in the highest (≥15.8 mg/day) vs lowest (≤5.9 mg/day) quintile of dietary zinc intake (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.70; P  =  .029) and remained low among participants with dietary zinc intake of at least 6.0-8.4 mg/day (aOR 0.73; P  =  .004).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 11,088 adults with or without migraine from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2004).

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liu H et al. Dietary zinc intake and migraine in adults: A cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004. Headache. 2023 (Jan 1). Doi: 10.1111/head.14431

Key clinical point: American adults with higher dietary zinc intake were at a lower risk for migraine, demonstrating an inverse association between dietary zinc intake and migraine.

Major finding: The risk for migraine was significantly lower among participants in the highest (≥15.8 mg/day) vs lowest (≤5.9 mg/day) quintile of dietary zinc intake (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.70; P  =  .029) and remained low among participants with dietary zinc intake of at least 6.0-8.4 mg/day (aOR 0.73; P  =  .004).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 11,088 adults with or without migraine from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2004).

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liu H et al. Dietary zinc intake and migraine in adults: A cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004. Headache. 2023 (Jan 1). Doi: 10.1111/head.14431

Key clinical point: American adults with higher dietary zinc intake were at a lower risk for migraine, demonstrating an inverse association between dietary zinc intake and migraine.

Major finding: The risk for migraine was significantly lower among participants in the highest (≥15.8 mg/day) vs lowest (≤5.9 mg/day) quintile of dietary zinc intake (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.70; P  =  .029) and remained low among participants with dietary zinc intake of at least 6.0-8.4 mg/day (aOR 0.73; P  =  .004).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 11,088 adults with or without migraine from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2004).

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liu H et al. Dietary zinc intake and migraine in adults: A cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004. Headache. 2023 (Jan 1). Doi: 10.1111/head.14431

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab vs placebo demonstrated significantly greater and sustained improvements in patient-reported overall health, quality of life, and most bothersome symptoms in patients with migraine and 2-4 preventive treatment failures.

Major finding: At week 12, 100 and 300 mg eptinezumab vs placebo led to significantly greater improvements in EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale scores (difference from placebo [Δ] 5.1; P < .001, and Δ 7.5; P < .0001, respectively), 6-item Headache Impact Test total scores (Δ −3.8 and −5.4, respectively; both P < .0001), Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire scores (both P < .0001), and patient-identified most bothersome symptoms (both P < .0001), with effects sustained until week 24.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3b DELIVER trial including 890 adults with episodic/chronic migraine and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures who were randomly assigned to receive eptinezumab (100/300 mg) or placebo.

Disclosures: The clinical trial and publication was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. Five authors declared being employees of H. Lundbeck A/S. Three authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: Goadsby PJ et al. Eptinezumab improved patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. Eur J Neurol. 2022 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.1111/ene.15670

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab vs placebo demonstrated significantly greater and sustained improvements in patient-reported overall health, quality of life, and most bothersome symptoms in patients with migraine and 2-4 preventive treatment failures.

Major finding: At week 12, 100 and 300 mg eptinezumab vs placebo led to significantly greater improvements in EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale scores (difference from placebo [Δ] 5.1; P < .001, and Δ 7.5; P < .0001, respectively), 6-item Headache Impact Test total scores (Δ −3.8 and −5.4, respectively; both P < .0001), Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire scores (both P < .0001), and patient-identified most bothersome symptoms (both P < .0001), with effects sustained until week 24.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3b DELIVER trial including 890 adults with episodic/chronic migraine and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures who were randomly assigned to receive eptinezumab (100/300 mg) or placebo.

Disclosures: The clinical trial and publication was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. Five authors declared being employees of H. Lundbeck A/S. Three authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: Goadsby PJ et al. Eptinezumab improved patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. Eur J Neurol. 2022 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.1111/ene.15670

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab vs placebo demonstrated significantly greater and sustained improvements in patient-reported overall health, quality of life, and most bothersome symptoms in patients with migraine and 2-4 preventive treatment failures.

Major finding: At week 12, 100 and 300 mg eptinezumab vs placebo led to significantly greater improvements in EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale scores (difference from placebo [Δ] 5.1; P < .001, and Δ 7.5; P < .0001, respectively), 6-item Headache Impact Test total scores (Δ −3.8 and −5.4, respectively; both P < .0001), Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire scores (both P < .0001), and patient-identified most bothersome symptoms (both P < .0001), with effects sustained until week 24.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3b DELIVER trial including 890 adults with episodic/chronic migraine and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures who were randomly assigned to receive eptinezumab (100/300 mg) or placebo.

Disclosures: The clinical trial and publication was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. Five authors declared being employees of H. Lundbeck A/S. Three authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: Goadsby PJ et al. Eptinezumab improved patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. Eur J Neurol. 2022 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.1111/ene.15670

Key clinical point: Single session of onabotulinumtoxinA effectively reduced neck and migraine-related disability and pain intensity over 3 months in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: OnabotulinumtoxinA significantly reduced Neck Disability Index scores (median −16.5 points; P < .001) and Migraine Disability Assessment scores (median −28 points; P < .001) after 4 weeks. The neck pain intensity and migraine headache intensity reduced by almost half (both P < .001) and the median number of monthly headache days reduced from 20 to 6 days (P < .001) after 3 months of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment.

Study details: This retrospective study included 134 patients with chronic migraine who received one session of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment.

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

Source: Onan D et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine: Investigation of its effects on disability, headache and neck pain intensity. Toxins (Basel). 2022;15(1):29 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.3390/toxins15010029

Key clinical point: Single session of onabotulinumtoxinA effectively reduced neck and migraine-related disability and pain intensity over 3 months in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: OnabotulinumtoxinA significantly reduced Neck Disability Index scores (median −16.5 points; P < .001) and Migraine Disability Assessment scores (median −28 points; P < .001) after 4 weeks. The neck pain intensity and migraine headache intensity reduced by almost half (both P < .001) and the median number of monthly headache days reduced from 20 to 6 days (P < .001) after 3 months of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment.

Study details: This retrospective study included 134 patients with chronic migraine who received one session of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment.

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

Source: Onan D et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine: Investigation of its effects on disability, headache and neck pain intensity. Toxins (Basel). 2022;15(1):29 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.3390/toxins15010029

Key clinical point: Single session of onabotulinumtoxinA effectively reduced neck and migraine-related disability and pain intensity over 3 months in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: OnabotulinumtoxinA significantly reduced Neck Disability Index scores (median −16.5 points; P < .001) and Migraine Disability Assessment scores (median −28 points; P < .001) after 4 weeks. The neck pain intensity and migraine headache intensity reduced by almost half (both P < .001) and the median number of monthly headache days reduced from 20 to 6 days (P < .001) after 3 months of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment.

Study details: This retrospective study included 134 patients with chronic migraine who received one session of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment.

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

Source: Onan D et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine: Investigation of its effects on disability, headache and neck pain intensity. Toxins (Basel). 2022;15(1):29 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.3390/toxins15010029

Key clinical point: The safety and tolerability of once-daily atogepant observed over 40 weeks in this extension trial aligns with profiles from the pivotal phase 3 trials with no new safety signals identified in patients with episodic migraine.

Major finding: Nearly 63% of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events, most being mild or moderate, with upper respiratory tract infection (5.5%) and urinary tract infection (5.3%) being most frequent. Treatment discontinuation rates due to lack of efficacy (0.6%) or adverse events (3.6%) were low. No deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the 309-OLEX trial, an open-label extension of phase 3 ADVANCE trial, including 685 patients with episodic migraine with or without aura who received 60 mg atogepant once daily for 40 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie Inc. (formerly Allergan). Five authors declared being full-time or former employees of or holding stock or stock options in AbbVie. Several authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Klein BC et al. Safety and tolerability results of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine from a 40-week, open-label multicenter extension of the phase 3 ADVANCE trial. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Jan 9). Doi: 10.1177/03331024221128250

Key clinical point: The safety and tolerability of once-daily atogepant observed over 40 weeks in this extension trial aligns with profiles from the pivotal phase 3 trials with no new safety signals identified in patients with episodic migraine.

Major finding: Nearly 63% of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events, most being mild or moderate, with upper respiratory tract infection (5.5%) and urinary tract infection (5.3%) being most frequent. Treatment discontinuation rates due to lack of efficacy (0.6%) or adverse events (3.6%) were low. No deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the 309-OLEX trial, an open-label extension of phase 3 ADVANCE trial, including 685 patients with episodic migraine with or without aura who received 60 mg atogepant once daily for 40 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie Inc. (formerly Allergan). Five authors declared being full-time or former employees of or holding stock or stock options in AbbVie. Several authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Klein BC et al. Safety and tolerability results of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine from a 40-week, open-label multicenter extension of the phase 3 ADVANCE trial. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Jan 9). Doi: 10.1177/03331024221128250

Key clinical point: The safety and tolerability of once-daily atogepant observed over 40 weeks in this extension trial aligns with profiles from the pivotal phase 3 trials with no new safety signals identified in patients with episodic migraine.

Major finding: Nearly 63% of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events, most being mild or moderate, with upper respiratory tract infection (5.5%) and urinary tract infection (5.3%) being most frequent. Treatment discontinuation rates due to lack of efficacy (0.6%) or adverse events (3.6%) were low. No deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the 309-OLEX trial, an open-label extension of phase 3 ADVANCE trial, including 685 patients with episodic migraine with or without aura who received 60 mg atogepant once daily for 40 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie Inc. (formerly Allergan). Five authors declared being full-time or former employees of or holding stock or stock options in AbbVie. Several authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.

Source: Klein BC et al. Safety and tolerability results of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine from a 40-week, open-label multicenter extension of the phase 3 ADVANCE trial. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Jan 9). Doi: 10.1177/03331024221128250

Key clinical point: A preconception history of migraine showed no significant association with the risk for spontaneous abortion (SAB); however, routine use of medication, suggesting more severe migraine, may confer a greater SAB risk.

Major finding: Preconception migraine history did not increase the risk for SAB (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.03; 95% CI 0.91-1.16), but daily migraine medication use (aHR 1.38; 95% CI 0.81-2.35), use of prescription migraine prophylaxis medication (aHR 1.43; 95% CI 0.72-2.84), or analgesic/caffeine medication use (aHR 1.42; 95% CI 0.99-2.04) showed a modest but non-significant association with SAB risk.

Study details: This study evaluated 7890 participants from an ongoing prospective study who conceived during follow-up and had or did not have a preconception diagnosis of migraine or migraine medication use, of which 1537 experienced SAB.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Crowe HM et al. Pre‑pregnancy migraine diagnosis, medication use, and spontaneous abortion: A prospective cohort study. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:162 (Dec 20). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01533-6

Key clinical point: A preconception history of migraine showed no significant association with the risk for spontaneous abortion (SAB); however, routine use of medication, suggesting more severe migraine, may confer a greater SAB risk.

Major finding: Preconception migraine history did not increase the risk for SAB (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.03; 95% CI 0.91-1.16), but daily migraine medication use (aHR 1.38; 95% CI 0.81-2.35), use of prescription migraine prophylaxis medication (aHR 1.43; 95% CI 0.72-2.84), or analgesic/caffeine medication use (aHR 1.42; 95% CI 0.99-2.04) showed a modest but non-significant association with SAB risk.

Study details: This study evaluated 7890 participants from an ongoing prospective study who conceived during follow-up and had or did not have a preconception diagnosis of migraine or migraine medication use, of which 1537 experienced SAB.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Crowe HM et al. Pre‑pregnancy migraine diagnosis, medication use, and spontaneous abortion: A prospective cohort study. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:162 (Dec 20). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01533-6

Key clinical point: A preconception history of migraine showed no significant association with the risk for spontaneous abortion (SAB); however, routine use of medication, suggesting more severe migraine, may confer a greater SAB risk.

Major finding: Preconception migraine history did not increase the risk for SAB (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.03; 95% CI 0.91-1.16), but daily migraine medication use (aHR 1.38; 95% CI 0.81-2.35), use of prescription migraine prophylaxis medication (aHR 1.43; 95% CI 0.72-2.84), or analgesic/caffeine medication use (aHR 1.42; 95% CI 0.99-2.04) showed a modest but non-significant association with SAB risk.

Study details: This study evaluated 7890 participants from an ongoing prospective study who conceived during follow-up and had or did not have a preconception diagnosis of migraine or migraine medication use, of which 1537 experienced SAB.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Crowe HM et al. Pre‑pregnancy migraine diagnosis, medication use, and spontaneous abortion: A prospective cohort study. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:162 (Dec 20). Doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01533-6

Key clinical point: A brief group education and supportive self-management program had no beneficial effects on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic migraine or chronic tension type headache and episodic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache.

Major finding: At 12 months, Headache Impact Test scores (adjusted mean difference [AMD] −0.3; P  =  .56), number of headache days (AMD 0.2; P  =  .234), duration of headache (estimated difference [ED] 0.4; P  =  .361), and headache severity (ED 0.2; P  =  .163) were not significantly different between patients who received self-management intervention vs usual care.

Study details: The data come from CHESS, a randomized controlled trial, including 727 participants with chronic migraine or chronic tension type headache and episodic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache, who received self-management intervention or usual care.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research program. Several authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, or honoraria from various sources or owning patent.

Source: Underwood M et al. A supportive self-management program for people with chronic headaches and migraine: A randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation. Neurology. 2022 (Dec 16). Doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000201518

Key clinical point: A brief group education and supportive self-management program had no beneficial effects on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic migraine or chronic tension type headache and episodic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache.

Major finding: At 12 months, Headache Impact Test scores (adjusted mean difference [AMD] −0.3; P  =  .56), number of headache days (AMD 0.2; P  =  .234), duration of headache (estimated difference [ED] 0.4; P  =  .361), and headache severity (ED 0.2; P  =  .163) were not significantly different between patients who received self-management intervention vs usual care.

Study details: The data come from CHESS, a randomized controlled trial, including 727 participants with chronic migraine or chronic tension type headache and episodic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache, who received self-management intervention or usual care.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research program. Several authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, or honoraria from various sources or owning patent.

Source: Underwood M et al. A supportive self-management program for people with chronic headaches and migraine: A randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation. Neurology. 2022 (Dec 16). Doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000201518

Key clinical point: A brief group education and supportive self-management program had no beneficial effects on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic migraine or chronic tension type headache and episodic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache.

Major finding: At 12 months, Headache Impact Test scores (adjusted mean difference [AMD] −0.3; P  =  .56), number of headache days (AMD 0.2; P  =  .234), duration of headache (estimated difference [ED] 0.4; P  =  .361), and headache severity (ED 0.2; P  =  .163) were not significantly different between patients who received self-management intervention vs usual care.

Study details: The data come from CHESS, a randomized controlled trial, including 727 participants with chronic migraine or chronic tension type headache and episodic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache, who received self-management intervention or usual care.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research program. Several authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, or honoraria from various sources or owning patent.

Source: Underwood M et al. A supportive self-management program for people with chronic headaches and migraine: A randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation. Neurology. 2022 (Dec 16). Doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000201518

Key clinical point: Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) dual therapy appeared less effective than erenumab alone in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: After 12 weeks, patients who were taking onabotA while initiating erenumab and maintained it as dual therapy (WBT) vs those who received erenumab alone (NoBT) had a lower reduction in mean monthly headache days (MHD; 4.7 vs 8.21 days; P  =  .009) and lower mean percentage improvement in MHD (21.7% vs 35.0%; P  =  .001), with a similar trend being observed among patients who were on onabotA while initiating erenumab but discontinued onabotA (WoBT).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 187 patients with chronic migraine who received WBT (n = 73), WoBT (n = 44), or NoBT (n = 70).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. A Jaimes and J Rodríguez-Vico declared receiving honoraria or speaking fees from AbbVie and other sources.

Source: Jaimes A et al. Dual therapy with Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA: No synergistic effect in chronic migraine: A retrospective cohort study. Pain Pract. 2022 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1111/papr.13196

Key clinical point: Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) dual therapy appeared less effective than erenumab alone in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: After 12 weeks, patients who were taking onabotA while initiating erenumab and maintained it as dual therapy (WBT) vs those who received erenumab alone (NoBT) had a lower reduction in mean monthly headache days (MHD; 4.7 vs 8.21 days; P  =  .009) and lower mean percentage improvement in MHD (21.7% vs 35.0%; P  =  .001), with a similar trend being observed among patients who were on onabotA while initiating erenumab but discontinued onabotA (WoBT).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 187 patients with chronic migraine who received WBT (n = 73), WoBT (n = 44), or NoBT (n = 70).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. A Jaimes and J Rodríguez-Vico declared receiving honoraria or speaking fees from AbbVie and other sources.

Source: Jaimes A et al. Dual therapy with Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA: No synergistic effect in chronic migraine: A retrospective cohort study. Pain Pract. 2022 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1111/papr.13196

Key clinical point: Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) dual therapy appeared less effective than erenumab alone in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: After 12 weeks, patients who were taking onabotA while initiating erenumab and maintained it as dual therapy (WBT) vs those who received erenumab alone (NoBT) had a lower reduction in mean monthly headache days (MHD; 4.7 vs 8.21 days; P  =  .009) and lower mean percentage improvement in MHD (21.7% vs 35.0%; P  =  .001), with a similar trend being observed among patients who were on onabotA while initiating erenumab but discontinued onabotA (WoBT).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 187 patients with chronic migraine who received WBT (n = 73), WoBT (n = 44), or NoBT (n = 70).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. A Jaimes and J Rodríguez-Vico declared receiving honoraria or speaking fees from AbbVie and other sources.

Source: Jaimes A et al. Dual therapy with Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA: No synergistic effect in chronic migraine: A retrospective cohort study. Pain Pract. 2022 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1111/papr.13196

Key clinical point: Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) dual therapy appeared less effective than erenumab alone in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: After 12 weeks, patients who were taking onabotA while initiating erenumab and maintained it as dual therapy (WBT) vs those who received erenumab alone (NoBT) had a lower reduction in mean monthly headache days (MHD; 4.7 vs 8.21 days; P  =  .009) and lower mean percentage improvement in MHD (21.7% vs 35.0%; P  =  .001), with a similar trend being observed among patients who were on onabotA while initiating erenumab but discontinued onabotA (WoBT).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 187 patients with chronic migraine who received WBT (n = 73), WoBT (n = 44), or NoBT (n = 70).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. A Jaimes and J Rodríguez-Vico declared receiving honoraria or speaking fees from AbbVie and other sources.

Source: Jaimes A et al. Dual therapy with Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA: No synergistic effect in chronic migraine: A retrospective cohort study. Pain Pract. 2022 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1111/papr.13196

Key clinical point: Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) dual therapy appeared less effective than erenumab alone in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: After 12 weeks, patients who were taking onabotA while initiating erenumab and maintained it as dual therapy (WBT) vs those who received erenumab alone (NoBT) had a lower reduction in mean monthly headache days (MHD; 4.7 vs 8.21 days; P  =  .009) and lower mean percentage improvement in MHD (21.7% vs 35.0%; P  =  .001), with a similar trend being observed among patients who were on onabotA while initiating erenumab but discontinued onabotA (WoBT).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 187 patients with chronic migraine who received WBT (n = 73), WoBT (n = 44), or NoBT (n = 70).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. A Jaimes and J Rodríguez-Vico declared receiving honoraria or speaking fees from AbbVie and other sources.

Source: Jaimes A et al. Dual therapy with Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA: No synergistic effect in chronic migraine: A retrospective cohort study. Pain Pract. 2022 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1111/papr.13196

Key clinical point: Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) dual therapy appeared less effective than erenumab alone in patients with chronic migraine.

Major finding: After 12 weeks, patients who were taking onabotA while initiating erenumab and maintained it as dual therapy (WBT) vs those who received erenumab alone (NoBT) had a lower reduction in mean monthly headache days (MHD; 4.7 vs 8.21 days; P  =  .009) and lower mean percentage improvement in MHD (21.7% vs 35.0%; P  =  .001), with a similar trend being observed among patients who were on onabotA while initiating erenumab but discontinued onabotA (WoBT).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 187 patients with chronic migraine who received WBT (n = 73), WoBT (n = 44), or NoBT (n = 70).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. A Jaimes and J Rodríguez-Vico declared receiving honoraria or speaking fees from AbbVie and other sources.

Source: Jaimes A et al. Dual therapy with Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA: No synergistic effect in chronic migraine: A retrospective cohort study. Pain Pract. 2022 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1111/papr.13196

Key clinical point: Youth with continuous headache from migraine, persistent post-traumatic headache (PPTH), and new daily persistent headache (NDPH) presented remarkably similar headache features, with most PPTH and NDPH cases resembling abrupt onset of migraine.

Major finding: Youths with migraine, PPTH, and NDPH had similar median usual headache severity score (P  =  .55), similar frequency of bad headaches (P  =  .63), and similar raw Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment score (P  =  .28). Overall, 72% youths with PPTH and 64% of youths with NDPH met all four diagnostic criteria for migraine.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 150 age- and sex-matched youths with continuous headache from migraine, PPTH, or NDPH who had prior exposure to ≤2 preventive medications.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the US National Institutes of Health and other sources. All authors declared receiving research grants, salary support, or compensation for serving as consultants for or owning stock options in various sources.

Source: Gentile CP et al. Comparison of continuous headache features in youth with migraine, new daily persistent headache, and persistent post-traumatic headache. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Jan 1). Doi: 10.1177/03331024221131331

Key clinical point: Youth with continuous headache from migraine, persistent post-traumatic headache (PPTH), and new daily persistent headache (NDPH) presented remarkably similar headache features, with most PPTH and NDPH cases resembling abrupt onset of migraine.

Major finding: Youths with migraine, PPTH, and NDPH had similar median usual headache severity score (P  =  .55), similar frequency of bad headaches (P  =  .63), and similar raw Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment score (P  =  .28). Overall, 72% youths with PPTH and 64% of youths with NDPH met all four diagnostic criteria for migraine.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 150 age- and sex-matched youths with continuous headache from migraine, PPTH, or NDPH who had prior exposure to ≤2 preventive medications.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the US National Institutes of Health and other sources. All authors declared receiving research grants, salary support, or compensation for serving as consultants for or owning stock options in various sources.

Source: Gentile CP et al. Comparison of continuous headache features in youth with migraine, new daily persistent headache, and persistent post-traumatic headache. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Jan 1). Doi: 10.1177/03331024221131331

Key clinical point: Youth with continuous headache from migraine, persistent post-traumatic headache (PPTH), and new daily persistent headache (NDPH) presented remarkably similar headache features, with most PPTH and NDPH cases resembling abrupt onset of migraine.

Major finding: Youths with migraine, PPTH, and NDPH had similar median usual headache severity score (P  =  .55), similar frequency of bad headaches (P  =  .63), and similar raw Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment score (P  =  .28). Overall, 72% youths with PPTH and 64% of youths with NDPH met all four diagnostic criteria for migraine.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 150 age- and sex-matched youths with continuous headache from migraine, PPTH, or NDPH who had prior exposure to ≤2 preventive medications.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the US National Institutes of Health and other sources. All authors declared receiving research grants, salary support, or compensation for serving as consultants for or owning stock options in various sources.

Source: Gentile CP et al. Comparison of continuous headache features in youth with migraine, new daily persistent headache, and persistent post-traumatic headache. Cephalalgia. 2023 (Jan 1). Doi: 10.1177/03331024221131331

Physician recommendations for surveillance colonoscopies in older adults with prior adenomas vary based on several factors, including patient age, health, adenoma risk, and physician specialty, according to a national survey.

In general, physicians were more likely to recommend surveillance for patients at a younger age, with better health, and with prior high-risk adenomas. Additionally, a large proportion of physicians reported uncertainty about whether the benefits of continued surveillance outweighed the risk of harm in older adults.

“There are no existing surveillance colonoscopy guidelines that integrate patient age, health, and adenoma risk, and physicians report significant decisional uncertainty,” Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

“Developing the evidence base to evaluate the risks and benefits of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate available data and weigh risks and benefits are needed to address current gaps in care for older adults with prior adenomas,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Surveying physicians

National guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy after adenoma removal at more frequent intervals than screening colonoscopy because of a higher risk of colorectal cancer among patients with adenomas. The high quality of screening colonoscopies coupled with an aging population means that many older adults have a history of adenomas and continue to undergo surveillance colonoscopies, the authors wrote.

The benefit-harm balance becomes uncertain as potential harms from the procedure increase with age. However, there is no clear guidance on when to stop surveillance in older adults following adenoma detection, they wrote.

Dr. Schoenborn and colleagues conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 1,800 primary care physicians and 600 gastroenterologists between April and November 2021. The primary care group included internal medicine, family medicine, general practice, and geriatric medicine physicians.

The research team asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in a series of 12 vignettes that varied by patient age (75 or 85), patient health (good, medium, or poor), and prior adenoma risk (low or high).

Good health was described as well-controlled hypertension and living independently, whereas moderate health was described as moderate heart failure and has difficulty walking, and poor health was described as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on oxygenand requires help with self-care.

For prior adenomas, high risk involved five tubular adenomas, one of which was 15 mm, and low risk involved two tubular adenomas, both of which were less than 10 mm. The survey also noted that the recommended surveillance intervals were 3 years in the high-risk scenario and 7 years in the low-risk scenario.

Researchers mailed 2,400 surveys and received 1,040 responses. They included 874 in the analysis because the physician respondents provided care to patients ages 65 and older and spent time seeing patients in clinic. Decisions about surveillance colonoscopies for adenomas in the absence of symptoms almost always occur in the outpatient setting, rather than acute or urgent care, the authors wrote.
 

Large variations found

Overall, physicians were less likely to recommend surveillance colonoscopies if the patient was older, had poor health, and had lower-risk adenomas. Patient age and health had larger effects on decision-making than adenoma risk, with health status having the largest effect.

About 20.6% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was 85, compared with 49.8% if the patient was 75. In addition, 7.1% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was in poor health, compared with 28.8% for those in moderate health, and 67.7% for patients in good health.

If the prior adenoma was low risk, 29.7% of physicians recommended surveillance, compared with 41.6% if the prior adenoma was high risk.

In general, family medicine and general practice physicians were most likely to recommend surveillance, at 40%, and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance, at 30.9%. Patient age and health had larger effects among gastroenterologists than among primary care physicians, and adenoma risk had similar effects between the two groups.

“The importance of patient age and health status found in our study mirrors study results on physician decision-making regarding screening colonoscopies in older adults and makes intuitive sense,” the authors wrote. “Whether the priorities reflected in our findings are supported by evidence is not clear, and our results highlight important knowledge gaps in the field that warrant future research.”
 

Physician uncertainty

Additional guidance would be helpful, the authors wrote. In the survey, about 52.3% of primary care physicians and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty about the benefit–harm balance of surveillance in older adults.

“Current guidelines on surveillance colonoscopies are solely based on prior adenoma characteristics,” the authors wrote. “Guidelines need to incorporate guidance that considers patient age and health status, as well as adenoma risk, and explicitly considers when surveillance should stop in older adults.”

In addition, most physicians in the survey – 85.9% of primary care physicians and 77% of gastroenterologists – said they would find a decision support tool helpful. At the same time, 32.8% of primary care physicians and 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist’s role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies.

“Developing patient-facing materials, communication tools for clinicians, and tools to support shared decision-making about surveillance colonoscopies that engage both physicians and patients are all important next steps,” the authors wrote. “To our knowledge, there is no existing patient decision aid about surveillance colonoscopies; developing such a tool may be valuable.”

The study was supported by Dr. Schoenborn’s career development award from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Physician recommendations for surveillance colonoscopies in older adults with prior adenomas vary based on several factors, including patient age, health, adenoma risk, and physician specialty, according to a national survey.

In general, physicians were more likely to recommend surveillance for patients at a younger age, with better health, and with prior high-risk adenomas. Additionally, a large proportion of physicians reported uncertainty about whether the benefits of continued surveillance outweighed the risk of harm in older adults.

“There are no existing surveillance colonoscopy guidelines that integrate patient age, health, and adenoma risk, and physicians report significant decisional uncertainty,” Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

“Developing the evidence base to evaluate the risks and benefits of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate available data and weigh risks and benefits are needed to address current gaps in care for older adults with prior adenomas,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Surveying physicians

National guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy after adenoma removal at more frequent intervals than screening colonoscopy because of a higher risk of colorectal cancer among patients with adenomas. The high quality of screening colonoscopies coupled with an aging population means that many older adults have a history of adenomas and continue to undergo surveillance colonoscopies, the authors wrote.

The benefit-harm balance becomes uncertain as potential harms from the procedure increase with age. However, there is no clear guidance on when to stop surveillance in older adults following adenoma detection, they wrote.

Dr. Schoenborn and colleagues conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 1,800 primary care physicians and 600 gastroenterologists between April and November 2021. The primary care group included internal medicine, family medicine, general practice, and geriatric medicine physicians.

The research team asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in a series of 12 vignettes that varied by patient age (75 or 85), patient health (good, medium, or poor), and prior adenoma risk (low or high).

Good health was described as well-controlled hypertension and living independently, whereas moderate health was described as moderate heart failure and has difficulty walking, and poor health was described as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on oxygenand requires help with self-care.

For prior adenomas, high risk involved five tubular adenomas, one of which was 15 mm, and low risk involved two tubular adenomas, both of which were less than 10 mm. The survey also noted that the recommended surveillance intervals were 3 years in the high-risk scenario and 7 years in the low-risk scenario.

Researchers mailed 2,400 surveys and received 1,040 responses. They included 874 in the analysis because the physician respondents provided care to patients ages 65 and older and spent time seeing patients in clinic. Decisions about surveillance colonoscopies for adenomas in the absence of symptoms almost always occur in the outpatient setting, rather than acute or urgent care, the authors wrote.
 

Large variations found

Overall, physicians were less likely to recommend surveillance colonoscopies if the patient was older, had poor health, and had lower-risk adenomas. Patient age and health had larger effects on decision-making than adenoma risk, with health status having the largest effect.

About 20.6% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was 85, compared with 49.8% if the patient was 75. In addition, 7.1% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was in poor health, compared with 28.8% for those in moderate health, and 67.7% for patients in good health.

If the prior adenoma was low risk, 29.7% of physicians recommended surveillance, compared with 41.6% if the prior adenoma was high risk.

In general, family medicine and general practice physicians were most likely to recommend surveillance, at 40%, and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance, at 30.9%. Patient age and health had larger effects among gastroenterologists than among primary care physicians, and adenoma risk had similar effects between the two groups.

“The importance of patient age and health status found in our study mirrors study results on physician decision-making regarding screening colonoscopies in older adults and makes intuitive sense,” the authors wrote. “Whether the priorities reflected in our findings are supported by evidence is not clear, and our results highlight important knowledge gaps in the field that warrant future research.”
 

Physician uncertainty

Additional guidance would be helpful, the authors wrote. In the survey, about 52.3% of primary care physicians and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty about the benefit–harm balance of surveillance in older adults.

“Current guidelines on surveillance colonoscopies are solely based on prior adenoma characteristics,” the authors wrote. “Guidelines need to incorporate guidance that considers patient age and health status, as well as adenoma risk, and explicitly considers when surveillance should stop in older adults.”

In addition, most physicians in the survey – 85.9% of primary care physicians and 77% of gastroenterologists – said they would find a decision support tool helpful. At the same time, 32.8% of primary care physicians and 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist’s role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies.

“Developing patient-facing materials, communication tools for clinicians, and tools to support shared decision-making about surveillance colonoscopies that engage both physicians and patients are all important next steps,” the authors wrote. “To our knowledge, there is no existing patient decision aid about surveillance colonoscopies; developing such a tool may be valuable.”

The study was supported by Dr. Schoenborn’s career development award from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Physician recommendations for surveillance colonoscopies in older adults with prior adenomas vary based on several factors, including patient age, health, adenoma risk, and physician specialty, according to a national survey.

In general, physicians were more likely to recommend surveillance for patients at a younger age, with better health, and with prior high-risk adenomas. Additionally, a large proportion of physicians reported uncertainty about whether the benefits of continued surveillance outweighed the risk of harm in older adults.

“There are no existing surveillance colonoscopy guidelines that integrate patient age, health, and adenoma risk, and physicians report significant decisional uncertainty,” Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

“Developing the evidence base to evaluate the risks and benefits of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate available data and weigh risks and benefits are needed to address current gaps in care for older adults with prior adenomas,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Surveying physicians

National guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy after adenoma removal at more frequent intervals than screening colonoscopy because of a higher risk of colorectal cancer among patients with adenomas. The high quality of screening colonoscopies coupled with an aging population means that many older adults have a history of adenomas and continue to undergo surveillance colonoscopies, the authors wrote.

The benefit-harm balance becomes uncertain as potential harms from the procedure increase with age. However, there is no clear guidance on when to stop surveillance in older adults following adenoma detection, they wrote.

Dr. Schoenborn and colleagues conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 1,800 primary care physicians and 600 gastroenterologists between April and November 2021. The primary care group included internal medicine, family medicine, general practice, and geriatric medicine physicians.

The research team asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in a series of 12 vignettes that varied by patient age (75 or 85), patient health (good, medium, or poor), and prior adenoma risk (low or high).

Good health was described as well-controlled hypertension and living independently, whereas moderate health was described as moderate heart failure and has difficulty walking, and poor health was described as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on oxygenand requires help with self-care.

For prior adenomas, high risk involved five tubular adenomas, one of which was 15 mm, and low risk involved two tubular adenomas, both of which were less than 10 mm. The survey also noted that the recommended surveillance intervals were 3 years in the high-risk scenario and 7 years in the low-risk scenario.

Researchers mailed 2,400 surveys and received 1,040 responses. They included 874 in the analysis because the physician respondents provided care to patients ages 65 and older and spent time seeing patients in clinic. Decisions about surveillance colonoscopies for adenomas in the absence of symptoms almost always occur in the outpatient setting, rather than acute or urgent care, the authors wrote.
 

Large variations found

Overall, physicians were less likely to recommend surveillance colonoscopies if the patient was older, had poor health, and had lower-risk adenomas. Patient age and health had larger effects on decision-making than adenoma risk, with health status having the largest effect.

About 20.6% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was 85, compared with 49.8% if the patient was 75. In addition, 7.1% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was in poor health, compared with 28.8% for those in moderate health, and 67.7% for patients in good health.

If the prior adenoma was low risk, 29.7% of physicians recommended surveillance, compared with 41.6% if the prior adenoma was high risk.

In general, family medicine and general practice physicians were most likely to recommend surveillance, at 40%, and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance, at 30.9%. Patient age and health had larger effects among gastroenterologists than among primary care physicians, and adenoma risk had similar effects between the two groups.

“The importance of patient age and health status found in our study mirrors study results on physician decision-making regarding screening colonoscopies in older adults and makes intuitive sense,” the authors wrote. “Whether the priorities reflected in our findings are supported by evidence is not clear, and our results highlight important knowledge gaps in the field that warrant future research.”
 

Physician uncertainty

Additional guidance would be helpful, the authors wrote. In the survey, about 52.3% of primary care physicians and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty about the benefit–harm balance of surveillance in older adults.

“Current guidelines on surveillance colonoscopies are solely based on prior adenoma characteristics,” the authors wrote. “Guidelines need to incorporate guidance that considers patient age and health status, as well as adenoma risk, and explicitly considers when surveillance should stop in older adults.”

In addition, most physicians in the survey – 85.9% of primary care physicians and 77% of gastroenterologists – said they would find a decision support tool helpful. At the same time, 32.8% of primary care physicians and 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist’s role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies.

“Developing patient-facing materials, communication tools for clinicians, and tools to support shared decision-making about surveillance colonoscopies that engage both physicians and patients are all important next steps,” the authors wrote. “To our knowledge, there is no existing patient decision aid about surveillance colonoscopies; developing such a tool may be valuable.”

The study was supported by Dr. Schoenborn’s career development award from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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