Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy and is the fourth most common cancer seen in U.S. women. It is the only major cancer that has continued to see a rise in incidence and mortality for the past 2 decades, and it is anticipated that nearly 66,000 new cases of EC will be diagnosed this year with 12,550 deaths.¹ Given that the well-established risk factors for developing EC including obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance, the obesity epidemic is indisputably playing a significant role in the increasing incidence.

Historically, White women were thought to have the highest incidence of EC; however, this incidence rate did not account for hysterectomy prevalence, which can vary widely by numerous factors including age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. When correcting EC incidence rates for prevalence of hysterectomy, Black women have had the highest incidence of EC since 2007, and rates continue to climb.² In fact, the average annual percent change (APC) in EC incidence from 2000 to 2015 was stable for White women at 0.2% while Black women had a near order of magnitude greater APC at 2.1%.²

Differing incidence rates of EC can also be seen by histologic subtype. Endometrioid EC is the more common and less lethal histology of EC that often coincides with the type I classification of EC. These tumors are estrogen driven; therefore, they are associated with conditions resulting in excess estrogen (for example, anovulation, obesity, and hyperlipidemia). Nonendometrioid histologies, primarily composed of serous tumors, are more rare, are typically more aggressive, are not estrogen driven, and are commonly classified as type II tumors. Racial differences between type I and type II tumors are seen with White women more commonly being diagnosed with type I tumors while Black women more typically have type II tumors. White women have the greatest incidence rate of endometrioid EC with an APC that remained relatively unchanged from 2000 to 2015. Black women’s APC in incidence rate of endometrioid EC has increased during this same period at 1.3%. For nonendometrioid tumors, an increasing incidence is seen in all races and ethnicities; however, Black women have a much higher incidence of these tumors, with a rate that continues to increase at an APC of 3.2%.²

EC incidence is increasing with a particularly concerning rise in those who report Black race, but are these same disparities being seen in EC mortality? Unfortunately, drastic disparities are seen in survival data for Black women afflicted with EC. Black patients are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced or metastatic EC and less likely to be diagnosed with localized tumors. While being diagnosed with a more advanced stage of disease does affect survival in EC, Black patients have worse survival regardless of stage of disease at the time of diagnosis.¹ As discussed earlier, the more aggressive type II tumors are composed of nonendometrioid histologies and are more common in Black women. This could lead to the false assumption that these higher-risk tumors are why Black women are disproportionately dying from EC; however, when examining survival by histologic subtype, Black women are more frequently dying from the lower-risk endometrioid EC regardless of stage of disease. The same disparate survival outcomes are also seen in nonendometrioid histologies.² Thus, Black patients have the lowest survival rates irrespective of stage at diagnosis or histologic subtype.

The disparities seen in EC mortality are not new. They can be seen in data for over 30 years and are only widening. While there has been an increase in mortality rates from EC across all races and ethnicities from 2015 to 2019 compared with 1990 to 1994, the mortality rate ratio for Black women compared with White women has increased from 1.83 in 1990-1994 to 1.98 in 2015-2019.³ In the early 1990s, the risk of death from ovarian cancer was twice that of EC. The mortality of EC is now similar to that of ovarian cancer. This threshold in mortality ratio of EC to ovarian cancer has already been seen in Black women, who have experienced greater mortality in EC compared with ovarian cancer since 2005. In fact, the EC mortality of Black women in 2019 was similar to the mortality of White women with ovarian cancer nearly 30 years ago.³

Decades of data have demonstrated the glaring racial disparities seen in EC, and yet, no significant progress has been made in addressing this inequity. Oncology research is now beginning to move beyond describing these differences to a strategy of achieving equitable cancer care. While the study frameworks and novel investigations aimed at addressing the disparities in EC is outside the scope of this article, disparities in clinical trial enrollment continue to exist.

A recent example can be seen in the practice-changing KEYNOTE-775 trial, which led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in EC treatment.⁴ A total of 827 patients with EC that progressed or recurred following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled in this multinational, multicenter trial. Thirty-one (3.7%) of the patients enrolled were Black. Of those who were enrolled in the United States, 14% were Black. The authors report that this proportion of Black patients in the United States is consistent with 2020 census data, which reported 13.4% of people identified as Black. However, using census data as a benchmark for equitable enrollment is inappropriate. Certain demographic groups are historically more difficult to count, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenge in obtaining an accurate count through job loss, government distrust, and access restrictions resulting in an estimated net undercount of 2.45% in those who report Black race.⁵ Composition of trial enrollment should mirror the population that will be affected by the study results. As advanced EC disproportionately affects Black patients, their enrollment must be higher in these pivotal trials. How else are we to know if these novel therapeutics will work in the population that is most afflicted by EC?

Future studies must account for socioeconomic factors while acknowledging the role of social determinants of health. It is imperative that we use the knowledge that race is a social construct created to control access to power and that there are biologic responses to environmental stresses, including that of racism, affecting health and disease. Changes at every level, from individual practitioners up to federal policies, will need to be enacted or else the unacceptable status quo will continue.
 

Dr. Burkett is a clinical fellow in the division of gynecologic oncology, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7-33.

2. Clarke MA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1895-908.

3. Giaquinto AN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139:440-2.

4. Makker V et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:437-48.

5. Elliott D et al. Simulating the 2020 Census: Miscounts and the fairness of outcomes. Urban Institute; 2021.

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s rare for a child to die after a tonsillectomy, but children who die are more likely to have a complex chronic condition such as cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, according to a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA.

“Among children undergoing tonsillectomy, the rate of postoperative death was 7 per 100,000 operations overall, [but] among children with complex chronic conditions, the rate of postoperative death was 117 per 100,000 operations, representing 44% of overall deaths,” write researchers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “These findings may inform decisionmaking for pediatric tonsillectomy.”

The rate of death in children after tonsillectomy has been uncertain, the authors write. Specific mortality rates for children at increased risk for complications, including those under 3 years old and those with sleep-disordered breathing or complex chronic conditions, have not been available.

To learn how likely children undergoing tonsillectomy are to die after their surgery, as well as which children are most at risk, lead study author M. Bruce Edmonson, MD, MPH, department of pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and his colleagues drew data from five states, including ambulatory surgery, inpatient, and emergency department discharge data sets provided by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for California, Florida, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin.

Participants included 504,262 patients under 21 years of age whose discharge records linked their inpatient or outpatient tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy, with at least 90 days of follow-up.

In a longitudinal analysis, the research team investigated postoperative death within 30 days or during a surgical stay lasting over 30 days. They calculated postoperative mortality per 100,000 operations, both overall and classified by age group, sleep-disordered breathing, and complex chronic conditions.

The 504,262 children ranged in age from 0 to 20 years and underwent a total of 505,182 tonsillectomies. Of these, 10.1% were performed in children aged under 3 years, 28.9% in children with sleep-disordered breathing, and 2.8% in those with complex chronic conditions.

The 36 linked postoperative deaths occurred between 2 and 20.5 days after surgical admission, and 19 (53%) of the deaths occurred after surgical discharge.

The unadjusted mortality rate was 7.04 (95% confidence interval, 4.97-9.98) deaths per 100,000 procedures. In multivariable models, children younger than 3 years and children with sleep-disordered breathing were not significantly more likely to die.

But children with complex chronic conditions were significantly more likely to die than were children without those conditions (117.22 vs. 3.87 deaths per 100,000 procedures, respectively).

Children with complex chronic conditions underwent only 2.8% of all tonsillectomies, but they accounted for 44% of postoperative deaths. Most deaths linked with complex chronic conditions occurred among children with neurologic, neuromuscular, congenital, or genetic disorders.
 

Findings can help providers advise patients and their families about tonsillectomy risks

Kavita Dedhia, MD, MSHP, attending otolaryngologist, Division of Otolaryngology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that she was not surprised by the findings.

“This study suggests that mortality is an extremely rare complication of tonsillectomy, and that children with complex medical conditions are at highest risk,” Dr. Dedhia, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

“Due to their underlying comorbidities, medically fragile children are considered to be at higher risk while undergoing anesthesia and surgical procedures,” she added.

Dr. Dedhia noted that nonpatient factors the study did not explore may have affected the mortality rates, including each hospital’s experience with managing children with complex medical conditions, as well as whether the hospitals were tertiary care facilities, and pediatric or adult hospitals.

She would like to know what hospital or practice characteristics may have contributed to the mortality risk and whether increased mortality in these patients is limited to tonsillectomy or is also found with other surgical procedures.

“The strength of this study is that it is large and multi-regional and that it informs providers about patient factors impacting mortality in pediatric tonsillectomy,” Dr. Dedhia said. “This study arms surgeons with data to discuss mortality risk with the families of medically complex children undergoing tonsillectomy.”

The study authors and Dr. Dedhia report no relevant financial relationships. Funding information was not provided.

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

It’s rare for a child to die after a tonsillectomy, but children who die are more likely to have a complex chronic condition such as cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, according to a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA.

“Among children undergoing tonsillectomy, the rate of postoperative death was 7 per 100,000 operations overall, [but] among children with complex chronic conditions, the rate of postoperative death was 117 per 100,000 operations, representing 44% of overall deaths,” write researchers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “These findings may inform decisionmaking for pediatric tonsillectomy.”

The rate of death in children after tonsillectomy has been uncertain, the authors write. Specific mortality rates for children at increased risk for complications, including those under 3 years old and those with sleep-disordered breathing or complex chronic conditions, have not been available.

To learn how likely children undergoing tonsillectomy are to die after their surgery, as well as which children are most at risk, lead study author M. Bruce Edmonson, MD, MPH, department of pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and his colleagues drew data from five states, including ambulatory surgery, inpatient, and emergency department discharge data sets provided by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for California, Florida, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin.

Participants included 504,262 patients under 21 years of age whose discharge records linked their inpatient or outpatient tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy, with at least 90 days of follow-up.

In a longitudinal analysis, the research team investigated postoperative death within 30 days or during a surgical stay lasting over 30 days. They calculated postoperative mortality per 100,000 operations, both overall and classified by age group, sleep-disordered breathing, and complex chronic conditions.

The 504,262 children ranged in age from 0 to 20 years and underwent a total of 505,182 tonsillectomies. Of these, 10.1% were performed in children aged under 3 years, 28.9% in children with sleep-disordered breathing, and 2.8% in those with complex chronic conditions.

The 36 linked postoperative deaths occurred between 2 and 20.5 days after surgical admission, and 19 (53%) of the deaths occurred after surgical discharge.

The unadjusted mortality rate was 7.04 (95% confidence interval, 4.97-9.98) deaths per 100,000 procedures. In multivariable models, children younger than 3 years and children with sleep-disordered breathing were not significantly more likely to die.

But children with complex chronic conditions were significantly more likely to die than were children without those conditions (117.22 vs. 3.87 deaths per 100,000 procedures, respectively).

Children with complex chronic conditions underwent only 2.8% of all tonsillectomies, but they accounted for 44% of postoperative deaths. Most deaths linked with complex chronic conditions occurred among children with neurologic, neuromuscular, congenital, or genetic disorders.
 

Findings can help providers advise patients and their families about tonsillectomy risks

Kavita Dedhia, MD, MSHP, attending otolaryngologist, Division of Otolaryngology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that she was not surprised by the findings.

“This study suggests that mortality is an extremely rare complication of tonsillectomy, and that children with complex medical conditions are at highest risk,” Dr. Dedhia, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

“Due to their underlying comorbidities, medically fragile children are considered to be at higher risk while undergoing anesthesia and surgical procedures,” she added.

Dr. Dedhia noted that nonpatient factors the study did not explore may have affected the mortality rates, including each hospital’s experience with managing children with complex medical conditions, as well as whether the hospitals were tertiary care facilities, and pediatric or adult hospitals.

She would like to know what hospital or practice characteristics may have contributed to the mortality risk and whether increased mortality in these patients is limited to tonsillectomy or is also found with other surgical procedures.

“The strength of this study is that it is large and multi-regional and that it informs providers about patient factors impacting mortality in pediatric tonsillectomy,” Dr. Dedhia said. “This study arms surgeons with data to discuss mortality risk with the families of medically complex children undergoing tonsillectomy.”

The study authors and Dr. Dedhia report no relevant financial relationships. Funding information was not provided.

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

It’s rare for a child to die after a tonsillectomy, but children who die are more likely to have a complex chronic condition such as cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, according to a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA.

“Among children undergoing tonsillectomy, the rate of postoperative death was 7 per 100,000 operations overall, [but] among children with complex chronic conditions, the rate of postoperative death was 117 per 100,000 operations, representing 44% of overall deaths,” write researchers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “These findings may inform decisionmaking for pediatric tonsillectomy.”

The rate of death in children after tonsillectomy has been uncertain, the authors write. Specific mortality rates for children at increased risk for complications, including those under 3 years old and those with sleep-disordered breathing or complex chronic conditions, have not been available.

To learn how likely children undergoing tonsillectomy are to die after their surgery, as well as which children are most at risk, lead study author M. Bruce Edmonson, MD, MPH, department of pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, and his colleagues drew data from five states, including ambulatory surgery, inpatient, and emergency department discharge data sets provided by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for California, Florida, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin.

Participants included 504,262 patients under 21 years of age whose discharge records linked their inpatient or outpatient tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy, with at least 90 days of follow-up.

In a longitudinal analysis, the research team investigated postoperative death within 30 days or during a surgical stay lasting over 30 days. They calculated postoperative mortality per 100,000 operations, both overall and classified by age group, sleep-disordered breathing, and complex chronic conditions.

The 504,262 children ranged in age from 0 to 20 years and underwent a total of 505,182 tonsillectomies. Of these, 10.1% were performed in children aged under 3 years, 28.9% in children with sleep-disordered breathing, and 2.8% in those with complex chronic conditions.

The 36 linked postoperative deaths occurred between 2 and 20.5 days after surgical admission, and 19 (53%) of the deaths occurred after surgical discharge.

The unadjusted mortality rate was 7.04 (95% confidence interval, 4.97-9.98) deaths per 100,000 procedures. In multivariable models, children younger than 3 years and children with sleep-disordered breathing were not significantly more likely to die.

But children with complex chronic conditions were significantly more likely to die than were children without those conditions (117.22 vs. 3.87 deaths per 100,000 procedures, respectively).

Children with complex chronic conditions underwent only 2.8% of all tonsillectomies, but they accounted for 44% of postoperative deaths. Most deaths linked with complex chronic conditions occurred among children with neurologic, neuromuscular, congenital, or genetic disorders.
 

Findings can help providers advise patients and their families about tonsillectomy risks

Kavita Dedhia, MD, MSHP, attending otolaryngologist, Division of Otolaryngology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that she was not surprised by the findings.

“This study suggests that mortality is an extremely rare complication of tonsillectomy, and that children with complex medical conditions are at highest risk,” Dr. Dedhia, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

“Due to their underlying comorbidities, medically fragile children are considered to be at higher risk while undergoing anesthesia and surgical procedures,” she added.

Dr. Dedhia noted that nonpatient factors the study did not explore may have affected the mortality rates, including each hospital’s experience with managing children with complex medical conditions, as well as whether the hospitals were tertiary care facilities, and pediatric or adult hospitals.

She would like to know what hospital or practice characteristics may have contributed to the mortality risk and whether increased mortality in these patients is limited to tonsillectomy or is also found with other surgical procedures.

“The strength of this study is that it is large and multi-regional and that it informs providers about patient factors impacting mortality in pediatric tonsillectomy,” Dr. Dedhia said. “This study arms surgeons with data to discuss mortality risk with the families of medically complex children undergoing tonsillectomy.”

The study authors and Dr. Dedhia report no relevant financial relationships. Funding information was not provided.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

Thanks to effective treatment, people with HIV are living longer. But as they age, they face higher rates of age-related comorbidities and hospitalizations, according to a recent study of hospitalized patients.

Decision-makers will need to allocate resources, train providers, and plan ways to manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, among geriatric HIV inpatients, according to the authors.

“There will be more [HIV] patients with age-related chronic conditions at an earlier age and who will utilize or will have a unique need for [health care for] these geriatric conditions,” first author Khairul A. Siddiqi, PhD, University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. “Eventually, that may increase inpatient resource utilization and costs.”

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.
 

Aging with HIV

Analyzing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, the authors compared characteristics and comorbidities linked to hospital stays among people with HIV (HSWH) to those linked to hospital stays among people without HIV (HSWOH).

The NIS is a database of hospital records that captures 20% of discharges in the United States and covers all payers. Data in this analysis covered the years 2003-2015.

Among HSWH, patients aged 50 or older accounted for an increasing proportion over time, from fewer than 25% in 2003 to over 50% by 2015, the authors found. The subgroup aged 65-80 had risen from 2.39% to 8.63% by 2015.

The authors also studied rates of eight comorbidities, termed HIV-associated non-AIDS (HANA) conditions: cardiovascular, lung, liver, neurologic, and kidney diseases; diabetes; cancer; and bone loss.

The average number of these conditions among both HSWH and HSWOH rose over time. But this change was disproportionately high among HSWH aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older.

Over the study period, among patients aged 65 or older, six of the eight age-related conditions the researchers studied rose disproportionately among HSWH in comparison with HSWOH; among those aged 50-64, five conditions did so.

The researchers are now building on the current study of HSWH by examining rates of resource utilization, such as MRIs and procedures, Dr. Siddiqi said.

Study limitations included a lack of data from long-term facilities, potential skewing by patients hospitalized multiple times, and the inherent limitations of administrative data.
 

A unique group of older people

Among people with HIV (PWH) in the United States, nearly half are aged 50 or older. By 2030, this group is expected to account for some 70% of PWH.

“We need to pay attention to what we know about aging generally. It is also important to study aging in this special population, because we don’t necessarily know a lot about that,” Amy Justice, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and of public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. Dr. Justice was not involved in the study.

The HIV epidemic has disproportionately affected people of color, men who have sex with men, and people with a history of injection drug use, Dr. Justice said.

“We don’t know about aging with [a] past history of injection drug use. We don’t even know much about aging with hepatitis C, necessarily,” she said. “So there are lots of reasons to pay some attention to this population to try to optimize their care.”

In addition, compared with their non–HIV-affected counterparts, these individuals are more susceptible to HANA comorbidities. They may experience these conditions at a younger age or more severely. Chronic inflammation and polypharmacy may be to blame, said Dr. Justice.

Given the burden of comorbidities and polypharmacy in this patient population, Dr. Siddiqi said, policy makers will need to focus on developing chronic disease management interventions for them.

However, Dr. Justice added, the risk for multimorbidity is higher among people with HIV throughout the age cycle: “It’s not like I turn 50 with HIV and all of a sudden all the wheels come off. There are ways to successfully age with HIV.”
 

Geriatric HIV expertise needed

Dr. Justice called the study’s analysis a useful addition to the literature and noted its implications for training.

“One of the biggest challenges with this large bolus of folks who are aging with HIV,” she said, “is to what extent should they be cared for by the people who have been caring for them – largely infectious disease docs – and to what extent should we really be transitioning their care to people with more experience with aging.”

Another key question, Dr. Justice said, relates to nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, whose staff may lack experience caring for HIV patients. Training them and hospital-based providers is crucial, in part to avoid key errors, such as missed antiretroviral doses, she said: “We need to really think about how to get non-HIV providers up to speed.”

That may begin by simply making it clear that this population is here.

“A decade ago, HIV patients used to have a lower life expectancy, so all HIV studies used to use 50 years as the cutoff point for [the] older population,” Dr. Siddiqi said. “Now we know they’re living longer.”

Added Dr. Justice: “Previously, people thought aging and HIV were not coincident findings.”

The study was funded by the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina. The authors and Dr. Justice disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Thanks to effective treatment, people with HIV are living longer. But as they age, they face higher rates of age-related comorbidities and hospitalizations, according to a recent study of hospitalized patients.

Decision-makers will need to allocate resources, train providers, and plan ways to manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, among geriatric HIV inpatients, according to the authors.

“There will be more [HIV] patients with age-related chronic conditions at an earlier age and who will utilize or will have a unique need for [health care for] these geriatric conditions,” first author Khairul A. Siddiqi, PhD, University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. “Eventually, that may increase inpatient resource utilization and costs.”

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.
 

Aging with HIV

Analyzing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, the authors compared characteristics and comorbidities linked to hospital stays among people with HIV (HSWH) to those linked to hospital stays among people without HIV (HSWOH).

The NIS is a database of hospital records that captures 20% of discharges in the United States and covers all payers. Data in this analysis covered the years 2003-2015.

Among HSWH, patients aged 50 or older accounted for an increasing proportion over time, from fewer than 25% in 2003 to over 50% by 2015, the authors found. The subgroup aged 65-80 had risen from 2.39% to 8.63% by 2015.

The authors also studied rates of eight comorbidities, termed HIV-associated non-AIDS (HANA) conditions: cardiovascular, lung, liver, neurologic, and kidney diseases; diabetes; cancer; and bone loss.

The average number of these conditions among both HSWH and HSWOH rose over time. But this change was disproportionately high among HSWH aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older.

Over the study period, among patients aged 65 or older, six of the eight age-related conditions the researchers studied rose disproportionately among HSWH in comparison with HSWOH; among those aged 50-64, five conditions did so.

The researchers are now building on the current study of HSWH by examining rates of resource utilization, such as MRIs and procedures, Dr. Siddiqi said.

Study limitations included a lack of data from long-term facilities, potential skewing by patients hospitalized multiple times, and the inherent limitations of administrative data.
 

A unique group of older people

Among people with HIV (PWH) in the United States, nearly half are aged 50 or older. By 2030, this group is expected to account for some 70% of PWH.

“We need to pay attention to what we know about aging generally. It is also important to study aging in this special population, because we don’t necessarily know a lot about that,” Amy Justice, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and of public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. Dr. Justice was not involved in the study.

The HIV epidemic has disproportionately affected people of color, men who have sex with men, and people with a history of injection drug use, Dr. Justice said.

“We don’t know about aging with [a] past history of injection drug use. We don’t even know much about aging with hepatitis C, necessarily,” she said. “So there are lots of reasons to pay some attention to this population to try to optimize their care.”

In addition, compared with their non–HIV-affected counterparts, these individuals are more susceptible to HANA comorbidities. They may experience these conditions at a younger age or more severely. Chronic inflammation and polypharmacy may be to blame, said Dr. Justice.

Given the burden of comorbidities and polypharmacy in this patient population, Dr. Siddiqi said, policy makers will need to focus on developing chronic disease management interventions for them.

However, Dr. Justice added, the risk for multimorbidity is higher among people with HIV throughout the age cycle: “It’s not like I turn 50 with HIV and all of a sudden all the wheels come off. There are ways to successfully age with HIV.”
 

Geriatric HIV expertise needed

Dr. Justice called the study’s analysis a useful addition to the literature and noted its implications for training.

“One of the biggest challenges with this large bolus of folks who are aging with HIV,” she said, “is to what extent should they be cared for by the people who have been caring for them – largely infectious disease docs – and to what extent should we really be transitioning their care to people with more experience with aging.”

Another key question, Dr. Justice said, relates to nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, whose staff may lack experience caring for HIV patients. Training them and hospital-based providers is crucial, in part to avoid key errors, such as missed antiretroviral doses, she said: “We need to really think about how to get non-HIV providers up to speed.”

That may begin by simply making it clear that this population is here.

“A decade ago, HIV patients used to have a lower life expectancy, so all HIV studies used to use 50 years as the cutoff point for [the] older population,” Dr. Siddiqi said. “Now we know they’re living longer.”

Added Dr. Justice: “Previously, people thought aging and HIV were not coincident findings.”

The study was funded by the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina. The authors and Dr. Justice disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Thanks to effective treatment, people with HIV are living longer. But as they age, they face higher rates of age-related comorbidities and hospitalizations, according to a recent study of hospitalized patients.

Decision-makers will need to allocate resources, train providers, and plan ways to manage chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cancer, among geriatric HIV inpatients, according to the authors.

“There will be more [HIV] patients with age-related chronic conditions at an earlier age and who will utilize or will have a unique need for [health care for] these geriatric conditions,” first author Khairul A. Siddiqi, PhD, University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. “Eventually, that may increase inpatient resource utilization and costs.”

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.
 

Aging with HIV

Analyzing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, the authors compared characteristics and comorbidities linked to hospital stays among people with HIV (HSWH) to those linked to hospital stays among people without HIV (HSWOH).

The NIS is a database of hospital records that captures 20% of discharges in the United States and covers all payers. Data in this analysis covered the years 2003-2015.

Among HSWH, patients aged 50 or older accounted for an increasing proportion over time, from fewer than 25% in 2003 to over 50% by 2015, the authors found. The subgroup aged 65-80 had risen from 2.39% to 8.63% by 2015.

The authors also studied rates of eight comorbidities, termed HIV-associated non-AIDS (HANA) conditions: cardiovascular, lung, liver, neurologic, and kidney diseases; diabetes; cancer; and bone loss.

The average number of these conditions among both HSWH and HSWOH rose over time. But this change was disproportionately high among HSWH aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older.

Over the study period, among patients aged 65 or older, six of the eight age-related conditions the researchers studied rose disproportionately among HSWH in comparison with HSWOH; among those aged 50-64, five conditions did so.

The researchers are now building on the current study of HSWH by examining rates of resource utilization, such as MRIs and procedures, Dr. Siddiqi said.

Study limitations included a lack of data from long-term facilities, potential skewing by patients hospitalized multiple times, and the inherent limitations of administrative data.
 

A unique group of older people

Among people with HIV (PWH) in the United States, nearly half are aged 50 or older. By 2030, this group is expected to account for some 70% of PWH.

“We need to pay attention to what we know about aging generally. It is also important to study aging in this special population, because we don’t necessarily know a lot about that,” Amy Justice, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and of public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. Dr. Justice was not involved in the study.

The HIV epidemic has disproportionately affected people of color, men who have sex with men, and people with a history of injection drug use, Dr. Justice said.

“We don’t know about aging with [a] past history of injection drug use. We don’t even know much about aging with hepatitis C, necessarily,” she said. “So there are lots of reasons to pay some attention to this population to try to optimize their care.”

In addition, compared with their non–HIV-affected counterparts, these individuals are more susceptible to HANA comorbidities. They may experience these conditions at a younger age or more severely. Chronic inflammation and polypharmacy may be to blame, said Dr. Justice.

Given the burden of comorbidities and polypharmacy in this patient population, Dr. Siddiqi said, policy makers will need to focus on developing chronic disease management interventions for them.

However, Dr. Justice added, the risk for multimorbidity is higher among people with HIV throughout the age cycle: “It’s not like I turn 50 with HIV and all of a sudden all the wheels come off. There are ways to successfully age with HIV.”
 

Geriatric HIV expertise needed

Dr. Justice called the study’s analysis a useful addition to the literature and noted its implications for training.

“One of the biggest challenges with this large bolus of folks who are aging with HIV,” she said, “is to what extent should they be cared for by the people who have been caring for them – largely infectious disease docs – and to what extent should we really be transitioning their care to people with more experience with aging.”

Another key question, Dr. Justice said, relates to nursing homes and assisted-living facilities, whose staff may lack experience caring for HIV patients. Training them and hospital-based providers is crucial, in part to avoid key errors, such as missed antiretroviral doses, she said: “We need to really think about how to get non-HIV providers up to speed.”

That may begin by simply making it clear that this population is here.

“A decade ago, HIV patients used to have a lower life expectancy, so all HIV studies used to use 50 years as the cutoff point for [the] older population,” Dr. Siddiqi said. “Now we know they’re living longer.”

Added Dr. Justice: “Previously, people thought aging and HIV were not coincident findings.”

The study was funded by the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina. The authors and Dr. Justice disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

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

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

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

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

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

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Poor objective sleep efficiency may contribute to older adults overestimating their cognitive abilities, preliminary findings from a pilot study of objective and subjective cognitive measures have shown.

The pilot study underscored the important role of objective sleep measures to better understand discrepancies when patients’ own reports of everyday cognitive function don’t align with objective cognitive profiles, Amy Costa, MA, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said in reporting the results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“Between our previously published paper and these new pilot results, we’re reporting evidence that suggests sleep is playing a role between the objective and subjective cognition relationship,” Ms. Costa said in an interview. “It is possible that these older adults who are sleeping poorly may be worse at understanding how well they’re doing cognitively. That’s really important for doctors. For example, if we can’t diagnose someone with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia earlier, then we can’t intervene as quickly.”
 

Sleep efficiency, cognition, and patient complaints

These findings are in agreement with those Ms. Costa and colleagues recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, she said.

The current pilot study included 35 older adults with an average age of 69 years who had insomnia complaints. They completed one night of home-based polysomnography – specifically with the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM – and a battery of cognitive tests. Their average sleep deficiency was 57%, “indicating potentially pretty severe insomnia,” Ms. Costa said.

“We found that sleep efficiency – that is the percentage of time spent sleeping while in bed – moderated the association between self reports and objective measures of cognitive distractibility,” Ms. Costa said in reporting the results. “In other words, our findings suggest that individuals with lower sleep efficiency who are performing the worst cognitively have the least amount of complaints. Basically, this can be thought of as that they are overestimating their cognitive performance.”
 

Sleep stage versus working memory and distractibility

The pilot study also focused on how the percentage of lighter-stage sleep, or N1 sleep, moderated the associations between working memory, as measured by Sternberg performance, and memory, distractibility, and blunders measured with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

At the highest percentage of N1 sleep, worse working memory was associated with fewer complaints about memory, distractibility, and blunders, Ms. Costa said.

“The percentage of lighter-stage N1 sleep and sleep efficiency moderated the association between cognitive flexibility and distractibility,” Ms. Costa said.  At the lowest percentage of N1 sleep, worse cognitive flexibility was associated with more distractibility, while at the highest percentage of N1 sleep worse cognitive flexibility showed a reverse effect; it was linked to less distractibility. The lowest percentage of sleep efficiency showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and less distractibility, but the highest percentage of SE showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and more distractibility.

“So in terms of evaluating their cognitive performance, the worse working memory was associated with more blunder complaints in individuals with the lowest percentage of N1,” she said. “So whenever individuals were spending less time in N1, they were able to better recognized their cognitive ability.”

She added, “Overall, more light and more fragmented sleep moderated the association between worse objective and less cognitive complaints, suggesting that these individuals might be overestimating their cognitive abilities.”

The findings indicate that evaluation of objective sleep should consider objectively measured N1 and sleep efficiency to better understand when subjective cognitive complaints and neurophysiological/objective cognitive profiles don’t align, she said.
 

Important indicators of cognitive deficits

“Specifically, for an older adult who comes into the clinic with complaints of waking up during the night, low sleep efficiency and more lighter-stage sleep might be really important indicators that they are probably not going to be the best at identifying their cognitive abilities or deficits,” she said.

Future directions for this research include collecting more data and looking at other sleep measures, such as using rapid-eye movement sleep, as potential moderators for the relationship between cognitive outcomes, evaluating sleep architecture more closely, and evaluating outcomes in a longitudinal study, Ms. Costa said.
 

The importance of objectively measured sleep

“Studies like this one using objectively measured sleep are important because much of the prior literature relied on self-reported sleep measures,” said Brendan P. Lucey, MD, associate professor of neurology and head of the sleep medicine section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “This study suggests how objectively measured sleep may mediate discrepancies in objective/subjective cognitive dysfunction. Future studies need to work out if we need to add objective sleep measures when evaluating cognitive complaints in older adults.”

Dr. Lucey, who was not involved in the study, voiced one concern with the pilot study methodology the future research should address: the use of the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM to measure N1 sleep, which, as he noted, records a single-channel electroencephalogram over the forehead. “Scoring N1 sleep relies on attenuation of the alpha rhythm over the occipital region and the Sleep Profiler is not as accurate as in-lab polysomnography for this sleep stage,” he said.

The pilot study received funding from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Ms. Costa and her coauthors have no disclosures. Dr. Lucey disclosed relationships with Merck, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and Beacon Biosignals.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Poor objective sleep efficiency may contribute to older adults overestimating their cognitive abilities, preliminary findings from a pilot study of objective and subjective cognitive measures have shown.

The pilot study underscored the important role of objective sleep measures to better understand discrepancies when patients’ own reports of everyday cognitive function don’t align with objective cognitive profiles, Amy Costa, MA, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said in reporting the results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“Between our previously published paper and these new pilot results, we’re reporting evidence that suggests sleep is playing a role between the objective and subjective cognition relationship,” Ms. Costa said in an interview. “It is possible that these older adults who are sleeping poorly may be worse at understanding how well they’re doing cognitively. That’s really important for doctors. For example, if we can’t diagnose someone with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia earlier, then we can’t intervene as quickly.”
 

Sleep efficiency, cognition, and patient complaints

These findings are in agreement with those Ms. Costa and colleagues recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, she said.

The current pilot study included 35 older adults with an average age of 69 years who had insomnia complaints. They completed one night of home-based polysomnography – specifically with the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM – and a battery of cognitive tests. Their average sleep deficiency was 57%, “indicating potentially pretty severe insomnia,” Ms. Costa said.

“We found that sleep efficiency – that is the percentage of time spent sleeping while in bed – moderated the association between self reports and objective measures of cognitive distractibility,” Ms. Costa said in reporting the results. “In other words, our findings suggest that individuals with lower sleep efficiency who are performing the worst cognitively have the least amount of complaints. Basically, this can be thought of as that they are overestimating their cognitive performance.”
 

Sleep stage versus working memory and distractibility

The pilot study also focused on how the percentage of lighter-stage sleep, or N1 sleep, moderated the associations between working memory, as measured by Sternberg performance, and memory, distractibility, and blunders measured with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

At the highest percentage of N1 sleep, worse working memory was associated with fewer complaints about memory, distractibility, and blunders, Ms. Costa said.

“The percentage of lighter-stage N1 sleep and sleep efficiency moderated the association between cognitive flexibility and distractibility,” Ms. Costa said.  At the lowest percentage of N1 sleep, worse cognitive flexibility was associated with more distractibility, while at the highest percentage of N1 sleep worse cognitive flexibility showed a reverse effect; it was linked to less distractibility. The lowest percentage of sleep efficiency showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and less distractibility, but the highest percentage of SE showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and more distractibility.

“So in terms of evaluating their cognitive performance, the worse working memory was associated with more blunder complaints in individuals with the lowest percentage of N1,” she said. “So whenever individuals were spending less time in N1, they were able to better recognized their cognitive ability.”

She added, “Overall, more light and more fragmented sleep moderated the association between worse objective and less cognitive complaints, suggesting that these individuals might be overestimating their cognitive abilities.”

The findings indicate that evaluation of objective sleep should consider objectively measured N1 and sleep efficiency to better understand when subjective cognitive complaints and neurophysiological/objective cognitive profiles don’t align, she said.
 

Important indicators of cognitive deficits

“Specifically, for an older adult who comes into the clinic with complaints of waking up during the night, low sleep efficiency and more lighter-stage sleep might be really important indicators that they are probably not going to be the best at identifying their cognitive abilities or deficits,” she said.

Future directions for this research include collecting more data and looking at other sleep measures, such as using rapid-eye movement sleep, as potential moderators for the relationship between cognitive outcomes, evaluating sleep architecture more closely, and evaluating outcomes in a longitudinal study, Ms. Costa said.
 

The importance of objectively measured sleep

“Studies like this one using objectively measured sleep are important because much of the prior literature relied on self-reported sleep measures,” said Brendan P. Lucey, MD, associate professor of neurology and head of the sleep medicine section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “This study suggests how objectively measured sleep may mediate discrepancies in objective/subjective cognitive dysfunction. Future studies need to work out if we need to add objective sleep measures when evaluating cognitive complaints in older adults.”

Dr. Lucey, who was not involved in the study, voiced one concern with the pilot study methodology the future research should address: the use of the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM to measure N1 sleep, which, as he noted, records a single-channel electroencephalogram over the forehead. “Scoring N1 sleep relies on attenuation of the alpha rhythm over the occipital region and the Sleep Profiler is not as accurate as in-lab polysomnography for this sleep stage,” he said.

The pilot study received funding from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Ms. Costa and her coauthors have no disclosures. Dr. Lucey disclosed relationships with Merck, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and Beacon Biosignals.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Poor objective sleep efficiency may contribute to older adults overestimating their cognitive abilities, preliminary findings from a pilot study of objective and subjective cognitive measures have shown.

The pilot study underscored the important role of objective sleep measures to better understand discrepancies when patients’ own reports of everyday cognitive function don’t align with objective cognitive profiles, Amy Costa, MA, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said in reporting the results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“Between our previously published paper and these new pilot results, we’re reporting evidence that suggests sleep is playing a role between the objective and subjective cognition relationship,” Ms. Costa said in an interview. “It is possible that these older adults who are sleeping poorly may be worse at understanding how well they’re doing cognitively. That’s really important for doctors. For example, if we can’t diagnose someone with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia earlier, then we can’t intervene as quickly.”
 

Sleep efficiency, cognition, and patient complaints

These findings are in agreement with those Ms. Costa and colleagues recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, she said.

The current pilot study included 35 older adults with an average age of 69 years who had insomnia complaints. They completed one night of home-based polysomnography – specifically with the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM – and a battery of cognitive tests. Their average sleep deficiency was 57%, “indicating potentially pretty severe insomnia,” Ms. Costa said.

“We found that sleep efficiency – that is the percentage of time spent sleeping while in bed – moderated the association between self reports and objective measures of cognitive distractibility,” Ms. Costa said in reporting the results. “In other words, our findings suggest that individuals with lower sleep efficiency who are performing the worst cognitively have the least amount of complaints. Basically, this can be thought of as that they are overestimating their cognitive performance.”
 

Sleep stage versus working memory and distractibility

The pilot study also focused on how the percentage of lighter-stage sleep, or N1 sleep, moderated the associations between working memory, as measured by Sternberg performance, and memory, distractibility, and blunders measured with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

At the highest percentage of N1 sleep, worse working memory was associated with fewer complaints about memory, distractibility, and blunders, Ms. Costa said.

“The percentage of lighter-stage N1 sleep and sleep efficiency moderated the association between cognitive flexibility and distractibility,” Ms. Costa said.  At the lowest percentage of N1 sleep, worse cognitive flexibility was associated with more distractibility, while at the highest percentage of N1 sleep worse cognitive flexibility showed a reverse effect; it was linked to less distractibility. The lowest percentage of sleep efficiency showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and less distractibility, but the highest percentage of SE showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and more distractibility.

“So in terms of evaluating their cognitive performance, the worse working memory was associated with more blunder complaints in individuals with the lowest percentage of N1,” she said. “So whenever individuals were spending less time in N1, they were able to better recognized their cognitive ability.”

She added, “Overall, more light and more fragmented sleep moderated the association between worse objective and less cognitive complaints, suggesting that these individuals might be overestimating their cognitive abilities.”

The findings indicate that evaluation of objective sleep should consider objectively measured N1 and sleep efficiency to better understand when subjective cognitive complaints and neurophysiological/objective cognitive profiles don’t align, she said.
 

Important indicators of cognitive deficits

“Specifically, for an older adult who comes into the clinic with complaints of waking up during the night, low sleep efficiency and more lighter-stage sleep might be really important indicators that they are probably not going to be the best at identifying their cognitive abilities or deficits,” she said.

Future directions for this research include collecting more data and looking at other sleep measures, such as using rapid-eye movement sleep, as potential moderators for the relationship between cognitive outcomes, evaluating sleep architecture more closely, and evaluating outcomes in a longitudinal study, Ms. Costa said.
 

The importance of objectively measured sleep

“Studies like this one using objectively measured sleep are important because much of the prior literature relied on self-reported sleep measures,” said Brendan P. Lucey, MD, associate professor of neurology and head of the sleep medicine section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “This study suggests how objectively measured sleep may mediate discrepancies in objective/subjective cognitive dysfunction. Future studies need to work out if we need to add objective sleep measures when evaluating cognitive complaints in older adults.”

Dr. Lucey, who was not involved in the study, voiced one concern with the pilot study methodology the future research should address: the use of the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM to measure N1 sleep, which, as he noted, records a single-channel electroencephalogram over the forehead. “Scoring N1 sleep relies on attenuation of the alpha rhythm over the occipital region and the Sleep Profiler is not as accurate as in-lab polysomnography for this sleep stage,” he said.

The pilot study received funding from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Ms. Costa and her coauthors have no disclosures. Dr. Lucey disclosed relationships with Merck, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and Beacon Biosignals.

An open-label extension of Biogen’s phase 3 VALOR study shows statistically significant benefits for the company’s novel antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), tofersen, in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) caused by superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene mutations.

The 1-year results, presented at the European Network for the Cure of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ENCALS) 2022 meeting, show a deceleration in functional decline that is similar, but “more pronounced” than the previously reported 6-month results, which were not statistically significant, said lead investigator Timothy Miller, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the ALS Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

“What I thought we saw in the first data cut is confirmed by what we saw in the longer data,” he said in an interview. “There were trends [showing] those treated with tofersen did a bit better, but it was hard to be sure. It was hard to be confident in what we were seeing at that early time point.”

Now, with 6 more months of data, Dr. Miller says he is confident that tofersen is slowing down the neurodegenerative disease process. “I see results that I’m encouraged by,” he said. “As a clinician who treats people with ALS with this mutation I would want this drug to be available to people that I see in my clinic.”
 

One-year VALOR study results

The primary efficacy objective of the VALOR study was to show the 28-week impact of 100 mg tofersen (three doses given about 2 weeks apart, then five doses given every 4 weeks), versus placebo, on function, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R). The open-label extension switched placebo-treated patients to tofersen (delayed-start group) and continued to compare them with the early-start group up to 1 year. This open-label extension phase included 49 patients who had been on early-start tofersen and 18 patients in the delayed-start group.

For the primary endpoint, change from baseline in 48-point ALSFRS-R score, there was a statistically significant benefit for the early-start patients with these patients scoring 3.5 points higher than the delayed-start group (P = .0272, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-6.7). This means that both groups declined in function, which is expected in ALS, but the early-start group declined more slowly.

There was also a benefit associated with early-start tofersen for a number of secondary endpoints, including change from baseline in total SOD1 cerebrospinal fluid concentration (CSF SOD1), plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and respiratory function.

“This drug targets the MRNA of SOD1, so it lowers the MRNA and then the SOD1 protein falls,” explained Dr. Miller, adding that these levels dropped 21% in the delayed start group, and 33% in the early-start group. “I think the data pretty clearly show that [tofersen] does what it is supposed to do, and that is the first step.”

Neurofilament light chain, a marker of neurodegeneration, also dropped by 41% in the delayed-start group, and 51% in the early-start group.

Respiratory function, as measured by percent predicted slow vital capacity (SVC), also declined 9.2% more slowly in the early- versus delayed-start group (P = .0159).

Finally, muscle strength, as measured by handheld dynamometry (HHD) score, declined more slowly in the early-start group compared with the late-start group, with an adjusted mean difference in score of 2.8 (P = 0.0186).

Dr. Miller said that the data show that it takes time for tofersen to impact clinical function, but there are signs of benefit before that. “I think what you see is that just starting on the drug, the first thing that happens is SOD1 goes down, the next thing is that neurofilament decreases, but clinical function is not yet changing. It takes time. What I see in these data is that it takes time for us to see that effect on clinical function.”
 

The bigger picture

While acknowledging that tofersen acts on a genetic mutation found in only about 2% of ALS, Dr. Miller said the study findings carry significance for the wider ALS patient population.

“Assuming we agree there is a clinical effect here, assuming we agree that there is real stabilization of clinical function, I think if we agree on that point then we know that ALS is now a treatable disorder. And that’s a really important point. I’m not sure that we knew that before,” he said. “Yes, there are FDA-approved medications that slow down ALS a bit, but they don’t stabilize it, and if we get the target correct – and we have the correct genetic target here – there can be a substantial influence on slowing down the disease, so that’s one thing to learn for the whole ALS community.”
 

What lies ahead?

Asked to comment on the study, Richard Bedlack, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the findings are important and show “clinically meaningful” results. “Based on the new benefit-to-burden ratio, I believe most of my patients with SOD1 mutations will want to try this drug.  I would like to be able to offer it to them.  But I am curious to see what the FDA will do with these data,” said Dr. Bedlack, professor of neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke ALS Clinic.

“Sometimes that open-label extension gives us time to see differences between patients who initially got drug and those who initially got placebo. That seems to be the case with tofersen here, and it was also the case with AMX0035 [Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.], which did not show a survival benefit in the first 6 months but did in the open-label extension.” A recent FDA advisory board panel concluded there was insufficient evidence of benefit for AMX0035, he noted. “I wonder if the same concern will be raised here, necessitating confirmation in another trial. I hope not, but only time will tell.”

Dr. Miller added that these results “highlight how difficult ALS drug development still is.  Among the many uncertainties in setting up a trial (targets, doses, inclusion criteria, outcomes), we still do not know how long we need to treat patients in order to see statistically significant changes in the clinical measures we use (ALSFRS-R, respiratory function, strength, survival, etc.). Most American studies are 6 months long and most European studies are 12 months long. Longer studies may be more likely to show benefits on certain measures (e.g., survival), but they cost more, they are challenged by dropouts as the disease progresses, and the idea of randomizing someone to a placebo for a whole year is psychologically difficult for patients, families, and many clinicians (myself included). So, we are seeing more studies like this one where the first 6 months are randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled, and then there is an open-label extension that lasts many months more.”

The study was sponsored by Biogen. Writing and editorial support was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions. Tofersen was discovered by Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr. Miller disclosed ties with Biogen, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cytokinetics, C2N, Disarm Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Bedlack disclosed ties with Biogen.

An open-label extension of Biogen’s phase 3 VALOR study shows statistically significant benefits for the company’s novel antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), tofersen, in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) caused by superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene mutations.

The 1-year results, presented at the European Network for the Cure of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ENCALS) 2022 meeting, show a deceleration in functional decline that is similar, but “more pronounced” than the previously reported 6-month results, which were not statistically significant, said lead investigator Timothy Miller, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the ALS Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

“What I thought we saw in the first data cut is confirmed by what we saw in the longer data,” he said in an interview. “There were trends [showing] those treated with tofersen did a bit better, but it was hard to be sure. It was hard to be confident in what we were seeing at that early time point.”

Now, with 6 more months of data, Dr. Miller says he is confident that tofersen is slowing down the neurodegenerative disease process. “I see results that I’m encouraged by,” he said. “As a clinician who treats people with ALS with this mutation I would want this drug to be available to people that I see in my clinic.”
 

One-year VALOR study results

The primary efficacy objective of the VALOR study was to show the 28-week impact of 100 mg tofersen (three doses given about 2 weeks apart, then five doses given every 4 weeks), versus placebo, on function, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R). The open-label extension switched placebo-treated patients to tofersen (delayed-start group) and continued to compare them with the early-start group up to 1 year. This open-label extension phase included 49 patients who had been on early-start tofersen and 18 patients in the delayed-start group.

For the primary endpoint, change from baseline in 48-point ALSFRS-R score, there was a statistically significant benefit for the early-start patients with these patients scoring 3.5 points higher than the delayed-start group (P = .0272, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-6.7). This means that both groups declined in function, which is expected in ALS, but the early-start group declined more slowly.

There was also a benefit associated with early-start tofersen for a number of secondary endpoints, including change from baseline in total SOD1 cerebrospinal fluid concentration (CSF SOD1), plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and respiratory function.

“This drug targets the MRNA of SOD1, so it lowers the MRNA and then the SOD1 protein falls,” explained Dr. Miller, adding that these levels dropped 21% in the delayed start group, and 33% in the early-start group. “I think the data pretty clearly show that [tofersen] does what it is supposed to do, and that is the first step.”

Neurofilament light chain, a marker of neurodegeneration, also dropped by 41% in the delayed-start group, and 51% in the early-start group.

Respiratory function, as measured by percent predicted slow vital capacity (SVC), also declined 9.2% more slowly in the early- versus delayed-start group (P = .0159).

Finally, muscle strength, as measured by handheld dynamometry (HHD) score, declined more slowly in the early-start group compared with the late-start group, with an adjusted mean difference in score of 2.8 (P = 0.0186).

Dr. Miller said that the data show that it takes time for tofersen to impact clinical function, but there are signs of benefit before that. “I think what you see is that just starting on the drug, the first thing that happens is SOD1 goes down, the next thing is that neurofilament decreases, but clinical function is not yet changing. It takes time. What I see in these data is that it takes time for us to see that effect on clinical function.”
 

The bigger picture

While acknowledging that tofersen acts on a genetic mutation found in only about 2% of ALS, Dr. Miller said the study findings carry significance for the wider ALS patient population.

“Assuming we agree there is a clinical effect here, assuming we agree that there is real stabilization of clinical function, I think if we agree on that point then we know that ALS is now a treatable disorder. And that’s a really important point. I’m not sure that we knew that before,” he said. “Yes, there are FDA-approved medications that slow down ALS a bit, but they don’t stabilize it, and if we get the target correct – and we have the correct genetic target here – there can be a substantial influence on slowing down the disease, so that’s one thing to learn for the whole ALS community.”
 

What lies ahead?

Asked to comment on the study, Richard Bedlack, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the findings are important and show “clinically meaningful” results. “Based on the new benefit-to-burden ratio, I believe most of my patients with SOD1 mutations will want to try this drug.  I would like to be able to offer it to them.  But I am curious to see what the FDA will do with these data,” said Dr. Bedlack, professor of neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke ALS Clinic.

“Sometimes that open-label extension gives us time to see differences between patients who initially got drug and those who initially got placebo. That seems to be the case with tofersen here, and it was also the case with AMX0035 [Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.], which did not show a survival benefit in the first 6 months but did in the open-label extension.” A recent FDA advisory board panel concluded there was insufficient evidence of benefit for AMX0035, he noted. “I wonder if the same concern will be raised here, necessitating confirmation in another trial. I hope not, but only time will tell.”

Dr. Miller added that these results “highlight how difficult ALS drug development still is.  Among the many uncertainties in setting up a trial (targets, doses, inclusion criteria, outcomes), we still do not know how long we need to treat patients in order to see statistically significant changes in the clinical measures we use (ALSFRS-R, respiratory function, strength, survival, etc.). Most American studies are 6 months long and most European studies are 12 months long. Longer studies may be more likely to show benefits on certain measures (e.g., survival), but they cost more, they are challenged by dropouts as the disease progresses, and the idea of randomizing someone to a placebo for a whole year is psychologically difficult for patients, families, and many clinicians (myself included). So, we are seeing more studies like this one where the first 6 months are randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled, and then there is an open-label extension that lasts many months more.”

The study was sponsored by Biogen. Writing and editorial support was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions. Tofersen was discovered by Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr. Miller disclosed ties with Biogen, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cytokinetics, C2N, Disarm Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Bedlack disclosed ties with Biogen.

An open-label extension of Biogen’s phase 3 VALOR study shows statistically significant benefits for the company’s novel antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), tofersen, in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) caused by superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene mutations.

The 1-year results, presented at the European Network for the Cure of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ENCALS) 2022 meeting, show a deceleration in functional decline that is similar, but “more pronounced” than the previously reported 6-month results, which were not statistically significant, said lead investigator Timothy Miller, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the ALS Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

“What I thought we saw in the first data cut is confirmed by what we saw in the longer data,” he said in an interview. “There were trends [showing] those treated with tofersen did a bit better, but it was hard to be sure. It was hard to be confident in what we were seeing at that early time point.”

Now, with 6 more months of data, Dr. Miller says he is confident that tofersen is slowing down the neurodegenerative disease process. “I see results that I’m encouraged by,” he said. “As a clinician who treats people with ALS with this mutation I would want this drug to be available to people that I see in my clinic.”
 

One-year VALOR study results

The primary efficacy objective of the VALOR study was to show the 28-week impact of 100 mg tofersen (three doses given about 2 weeks apart, then five doses given every 4 weeks), versus placebo, on function, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R). The open-label extension switched placebo-treated patients to tofersen (delayed-start group) and continued to compare them with the early-start group up to 1 year. This open-label extension phase included 49 patients who had been on early-start tofersen and 18 patients in the delayed-start group.

For the primary endpoint, change from baseline in 48-point ALSFRS-R score, there was a statistically significant benefit for the early-start patients with these patients scoring 3.5 points higher than the delayed-start group (P = .0272, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-6.7). This means that both groups declined in function, which is expected in ALS, but the early-start group declined more slowly.

There was also a benefit associated with early-start tofersen for a number of secondary endpoints, including change from baseline in total SOD1 cerebrospinal fluid concentration (CSF SOD1), plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and respiratory function.

“This drug targets the MRNA of SOD1, so it lowers the MRNA and then the SOD1 protein falls,” explained Dr. Miller, adding that these levels dropped 21% in the delayed start group, and 33% in the early-start group. “I think the data pretty clearly show that [tofersen] does what it is supposed to do, and that is the first step.”

Neurofilament light chain, a marker of neurodegeneration, also dropped by 41% in the delayed-start group, and 51% in the early-start group.

Respiratory function, as measured by percent predicted slow vital capacity (SVC), also declined 9.2% more slowly in the early- versus delayed-start group (P = .0159).

Finally, muscle strength, as measured by handheld dynamometry (HHD) score, declined more slowly in the early-start group compared with the late-start group, with an adjusted mean difference in score of 2.8 (P = 0.0186).

Dr. Miller said that the data show that it takes time for tofersen to impact clinical function, but there are signs of benefit before that. “I think what you see is that just starting on the drug, the first thing that happens is SOD1 goes down, the next thing is that neurofilament decreases, but clinical function is not yet changing. It takes time. What I see in these data is that it takes time for us to see that effect on clinical function.”
 

The bigger picture

While acknowledging that tofersen acts on a genetic mutation found in only about 2% of ALS, Dr. Miller said the study findings carry significance for the wider ALS patient population.

“Assuming we agree there is a clinical effect here, assuming we agree that there is real stabilization of clinical function, I think if we agree on that point then we know that ALS is now a treatable disorder. And that’s a really important point. I’m not sure that we knew that before,” he said. “Yes, there are FDA-approved medications that slow down ALS a bit, but they don’t stabilize it, and if we get the target correct – and we have the correct genetic target here – there can be a substantial influence on slowing down the disease, so that’s one thing to learn for the whole ALS community.”
 

What lies ahead?

Asked to comment on the study, Richard Bedlack, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the findings are important and show “clinically meaningful” results. “Based on the new benefit-to-burden ratio, I believe most of my patients with SOD1 mutations will want to try this drug.  I would like to be able to offer it to them.  But I am curious to see what the FDA will do with these data,” said Dr. Bedlack, professor of neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke ALS Clinic.

“Sometimes that open-label extension gives us time to see differences between patients who initially got drug and those who initially got placebo. That seems to be the case with tofersen here, and it was also the case with AMX0035 [Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.], which did not show a survival benefit in the first 6 months but did in the open-label extension.” A recent FDA advisory board panel concluded there was insufficient evidence of benefit for AMX0035, he noted. “I wonder if the same concern will be raised here, necessitating confirmation in another trial. I hope not, but only time will tell.”

Dr. Miller added that these results “highlight how difficult ALS drug development still is.  Among the many uncertainties in setting up a trial (targets, doses, inclusion criteria, outcomes), we still do not know how long we need to treat patients in order to see statistically significant changes in the clinical measures we use (ALSFRS-R, respiratory function, strength, survival, etc.). Most American studies are 6 months long and most European studies are 12 months long. Longer studies may be more likely to show benefits on certain measures (e.g., survival), but they cost more, they are challenged by dropouts as the disease progresses, and the idea of randomizing someone to a placebo for a whole year is psychologically difficult for patients, families, and many clinicians (myself included). So, we are seeing more studies like this one where the first 6 months are randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled, and then there is an open-label extension that lasts many months more.”

The study was sponsored by Biogen. Writing and editorial support was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions. Tofersen was discovered by Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr. Miller disclosed ties with Biogen, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cytokinetics, C2N, Disarm Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Bedlack disclosed ties with Biogen.

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – In line with recommendations, emergency departments dramatically reduced their use of opioids as treatments for headache over a recent 11-year period, a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.

From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.

“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.

Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
 

Headache treatment in the ED

For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.

For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).

In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.

Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.

Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).

“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”

Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”

As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
 

Evidence-based treatments underutilized

Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”

As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
 

Overuse of neuroimaging

Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”

For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”

The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.

DENVER – In line with recommendations, emergency departments dramatically reduced their use of opioids as treatments for headache over a recent 11-year period, a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.

From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.

“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.

Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
 

Headache treatment in the ED

For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.

For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).

In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.

Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.

Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).

“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”

Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”

As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
 

Evidence-based treatments underutilized

Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”

As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
 

Overuse of neuroimaging

Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”

For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”

The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.

DENVER – In line with recommendations, emergency departments dramatically reduced their use of opioids as treatments for headache over a recent 11-year period, a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.

From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.

“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.

Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
 

Headache treatment in the ED

For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.

For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).

In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.

Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.

Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).

“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”

Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”

As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
 

Evidence-based treatments underutilized

Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”

As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
 

Overuse of neuroimaging

Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”

For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”

The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.