Clinical Topics & News

Following the American Headache Society’s Scottsdale Headache Symposium in November 2018, MedPage Today posted an article which shared differing opinions from Drs. Hans-Christoph Diener and Elizabeth Loder on medication overuse headache (MOH). While Dr. Diener noted that “we can identify people with chronic migraine who are at risk to have medication overuse,” and that following successful withdrawal treatment “the majority of patients…revert to episodic migraine,” Dr. Loder pointed out that while MOH may exist and contribute to chronic migraine, “it is over-emphasized and the evidence in support of these concepts is weak.”

For this article, I’ve asked Drs. Marcelo Bigal, Rob Cowan, Jack Schim, and Stewart J. Tepper to share their perspectives on this topic. I also asked both Dr. Diener and Dr. Loder to expand on their comments. We will see Dr. Diener’s response to the article, but we did not hear back from Dr. Loder. Lastly, I will weigh in on the MOH discussion.
 

Marcelo Bigal, MD, PhD
Chief Medical Officer, Purdue Pharma

The issue of medication overuse headache (MOH) needs to be disentangled into a few separate but related issues. First, do excessive medications make migraine worse? Second, should MOH be considered a distinct form of headache? And how can evidence inform clinical practice?

Robust evidence supports the fact that excessive acute medication use is associated with increased headache frequency among migraineurs. In a large epidemiological study, we demonstrated that exposure (medication) precedes outcome (increased headache frequency).¹ The risk was higher for barbiturates, followed by opioids and triptans, and was not increased by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Dose response and critical exposure levels were identified. Based on this study and several others, we argued that criteria of causality had been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.²

However, since the effect is specific to migraine in that the exposure only increases the risk in migraineurs, not in individuals with other types of pain, we do not consider MOH a distinct entity. Instead, we believe that excessive medication is a risk factor for chronic migraine (CM). Therefore, we should be able to subdivide CM into 2 groups, one with and one without excessive medication use.

From a clinical perspective, physicians should monitor acute medication consumption in individuals with migraine and should be liberal in starting preventive therapy. In those with CM and excessive acute medication use we don’t advocate abrupt discontinuation of acute medications, since some preventive medications, especially the newer anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies, seem to work equally well in individuals with and without excessive use of medication,³ allowing more natural and gradual control of acute medication consumption without the need for detoxification.

Rob Cowan, MD, FAAN, FAHS
Higgins Professor of Neurology and Neurosciences
Chief, Division of Headache Medicine, Dept. of Neurology and Neurosciences
Director, Stanford University School of Medicine

As is often the case when 2 smart people take artificially imposed opposite positions, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. I doubt either of the debaters would argue either extreme position: MOH does not exist, or MOH when present is solely responsible for chronic daily headache (CDH). The argument that the absence of controlled studies negates the proposition fails the common-sense test: Without a controlled study, we can’t be sure that wearing a helmet when bicycling is better than not. In such a case, observational data is sufficient. Could there be confounders (eg, helmet wearers are more inclined to ride safely)? Of course, but is that important? Similarly, does the fact that some MOH patients continue with CDH after cessation of medication overuse warrant a general de-emphasis? Certainly not for the third-to-half of patients who benefit from limiting medication use.

I suspect both Drs. Diener and Loder would agree that we would benefit from better markers of chronification and that earlier intervention with at-risk patients (eg, patients with increasing headache frequency, severity or duration but still in the episodic phase).

Jack Schim, MD
Co-Director, The Headache Center of Southern California

There has long been recognition that overuse of analgesic medications can be linked to progression of headache disorders. MOH was initially described by Dr. Lee Kudrow in 1982, in a chapter entitled, “Paradoxical effects of frequent analgesic use.”⁴ The most recent edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) description does not entail features that imply causality. While there is epidemiologic observation of correlation between frequent analgesic use and progression of primary headache disorders, the causal relationship is often obscured by the facts. Overuse of acute medications is quite common in individuals with CM, but not all with CM overuse medications.

In the article being discussed, Drs. Diener and Loder reviewed facts and opinions. They helped clarify that while MOH is widely recognized, much of what is known is descriptive, and not based on solid science. From their presentations, we can conclude that we can recognize MOH based on ICHD-3 criteria, but we cannot tell an individual with chronic headache whether we can best help them by educating them, or by adjusting preventives, or both. The call to action is clear; we need to evaluate best therapeutic approaches in an empiric fashion. Our best new therapies for migraine prevention, CGRP mAbs, work for the majority of patients, with minimal side effects, even in the face of what has been considered MOH. Now, we need to strategize how best to approach these clinically challenged individuals. We need to avoid further stigmatizing our patients. Let’s recognize that our patients do not fail preventives, the prior preventives have failed our patients. Can the introduction of highly effective, well tolerated preventives at an earlier stage help avoid chronification that may drive medication overuse?

Stewart J. Tepper, MD, FAHS
Professor of Neurology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

It is clear that overuse of some acute medication is detrimental to patient health. Examples of this include analgesic nephropathy or peptic ulcer disease, and exacerbation of depression with overuse of barbiturate compounds or benzodiazepines. Few doubt the health merits of reduction of acute medication overuse, regardless of whether the acute medications can be proven to transform episodic migraine (EM) to CM.

The good news is that the issues of the existence of true MOH and its proper management are rapidly becoming less important. OnabotulinumtoxinA use decreases triptan use in multiple randomized controlled trials for CM prevention.

Each of the anti-CGRP and anti-CGRP receptor monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been effective in preventing CM with medication overuse. All have lowered acute medication use, both triptans and analgesics. It is worth noting, however, that in both the OnabotulinumtoxinA and mAb trials, over-users of opioids and barbiturates were excluded. The mAbs converted patients from acute medication overuse to non-overuse, and from CM with medication overuse to EM without medication. These changes occurred without specific plans for weaning acute medication in place.

Accordingly, patients with CM with acute medication overuse should be treated with optimal prevention, and the evidence is strongest for use of the mAbs to both reduce mean monthly migraine days and all acute medication use, both triptans and analgesics. The new monoclonal antibody effectiveness may make the old arguments moot.

Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD
University of Essen, Germany

I think no one doubts that MOH exists. The worldwide prevalence is between 1% and 2% (Table). The dilemma is that the diagnosis can only be made after the intake of acute medication has been reduced. There are confounders: migraine can improve irrespective of the reduction of acute medication and many physicians will implement migraine prevention at the time of withdrawal. No randomized trial compared the continuation of unchanged intake of medication to treat migraine attacks with reduction or withdrawal.

+++

Commentary by Alan M. Rapoport, MD

The above comments by my associates are very informative and help the reader to better understand the arguments about MOH. When Dr. Lee Kudrow taught me and my partner Dr. Fred Sheftell about the entity of analgesic and ergotamine overuse headaches in 1979, we set out to find those patients, observe and treat them. We did not have to wait long as so many patients with frequent and severe headaches came to see us with what we now term “medication overuse headache.” They told us that they had fewer headaches several years before and increased the use of acute care medications as their headaches increased in frequency. They were unaware of the probability that their headaches increased in frequency because their medication did. Some would argue that they increased their intake to feel better as the headache increased on their own.

Of course, we were not sure of the cause and effect, but we saw the result of tapering the acute care medications, whether or not we used preventives, hospitalized those patients or treated them with behavioral medicine approaches, etc. We observed that the combination of these treatments seemed to work better than just detox, but we did not do the proper studies to prove it. We also noticed that about 30% to 40% of patients did not improve as well as others, and daily or near-daily headaches continued, often of a lesser intensity. Almost all felt better in general and had fewer adverse events from the medication. The decrease in those medications was undoubtedly better for their brain function, livers and kidneys.

I do believe that medication overuse makes most patients with frequent EM or CM worse and we should educate patients to avoid it. I agree with Dr. Bigal that preventive medications may help some patients to improve despite the excessive use of acute care medication, but I am not sure that the older preventives work as well and certainly not as quickly as the newer ones. Recently I have seen the anti-CGRP mAbs work wonders with some of my patients who could not decrease their triptan intake. They just stop using the triptans as their headaches decrease on these therapies.

There is another interesting phenomenon that I have seen in practice—mostly with butalbital products, which I no longer prescribe. Forty years ago, patients would say that they only had 4 headaches per month lasting 1 to 2 days and I would prescribe 10 pills for them. They would call in 2 weeks and say they needed more. When queried they would invariably say it worked so well on the bad headaches and made them feel so much better, that they took 1 or 2 on days they thought they were going to get a headache and it prevented them from forming. They were soon taking it frequently and over time they were dependent on the medication, and then it stopped working and was difficult to withdraw.

Dr. Loder’s point that the studies on MOH have not proven that medication overuse causes it may be technically true; but it would be unethical to start patients on too much medication and randomize some to stay on and some to taper off. Dr. Kudrow came the closest by taking existing MOH patients and treating half with withdrawal and half of each with preventives. His breakthrough study in 1982 “proved” the existence of analgesic rebound and directed us to the best treatment at that time.⁴ This was the first study to examine the effect of stopping the overuse of medication to see the results.

Finally, I am unhappy that ICHD-3 has defined MOH only by number of days of medication use, not at all considering whether or not the patient develops a new type of headache, a worse type or more frequent headache (the way it was in previous versions). We have all seen patients taking 3 triptans per day on their own or with our suggestion, and many actually do better with no headache, for a period of time. This is medication overuse by definition, but not MOH, as they have little headache. But we do not recognize this entity.

The good news is, with education and anti-CGRP therapies, we will probably see less MOH in the future, or at least know better how to treat it.

+++

References

1. Bigal ME, Serrano D, Buse D, et al. Acute migraine medications and evolution from episodic to chronic migraine: a longitudinal population-based study. Headache. 2008;48(8):1157-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2008.01217.x. PubMed PMID: 18808500.

2. Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Overuse of acute migraine medications and migraine chronification. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2009;13(4):301-7. PubMed PMID: 19586594.

3. Bigal ME, Edvinsson L, Rapoport AM, et al. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of TEV-48125 for preventive treatment of chronic migraine: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(11):1091-100. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00245-8. PubMed PMID: 26432181.

4. Kudrow L. Paradoxical Effects of Frequent Analgesic Use. Advances in Neurology. 1982;33:335-341.

5. Diener HC, Holle D, Dresler T, Gaul C. Chronic Headache Due to Overuse of Analgesics and Anti-Migraine Agents. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115(22):365-370.

6. Westergaard ML, Glumer C, Hansen EH, Jensen RH. Prevalence of chronic headache with and without medication overuse: associations with socioeconomic position and physical and mental health status. Pain. 2014;155(10):2005-2013.

7. Castillo J, Munoz P, Guitera V, Pascual J. Epidemiology of chronic daily headache in the general population. Headache. 1999;39:190-196.

8. Wang SJ, Fuh JL, Lu SR, et al. Chronic daily headache in chinese elderly - prevalence, risk factors, and biannual follow-up. Neurology. 2000;54:314-319.

9. Lu SR, Fuh JL, Chen WT, Juang KD, Wang SJ. Chronic daily headache in Taipei, Taiwan: prevalence, follow-up and outcome predictors. Cephalalgia. 2001;21:980-986.

10. Pascual J, Colas R, Castillo J. Epidemiology of chronic daily headache. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2001;5(6):529-536.

11. Prencipe M, Casini AR, Ferretti C, et al. Prevalence of headache in an elderly population: attack frequency, disability, and use of medication. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;70(3):377-381.

12. Colas R, Munoz P, Temprano R, Gomez C, Pascual J. Chronic daily headache with analgesic overuse: epidemiology and impact on quality of life. Neurology. 2004;62:1338-1342.

13. Zwart J, Dyb G, Hagen K, Svebak S, Stovner L, Holmen J. Analgesic overuse among subjects with headache, neck, and low back pain. Neurology. 2004;62:1540-1544.

14. Dyb G, Holmen TL, Zwart JA. Analgesic overuse among adolescents with headache: the Head-HUNT-Youth Study. Neurology. 2006;66(2):198-201.

15. Wang SJ, Fuh JL, Lu SR, Juang KD. Chronic daily headache in adolescents: prevalence, impact, and medication overuse. Neurology. 2006;66(2):193-197.

16. Wiendels NJ, Knuistingh NA, Rosendaal FR, et al. Chronic frequent headache in the general population: prevalence and associated factors. Cephalalgia. 2006;26(12):1434-1442.

17. Stovner L, Hagen K, Jensen R, et al. The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability worldwide. Cephalalgia. 2007;27(3):193-210.

18. Aaseth K, Grande RB, Kvaerner KJ, Gulbrandsen P, Lundqvist C, Russell MB. Prevalence of secondary chronic headaches in a population-based sample of 30-44-year-old persons. The Akershus study of chronic headache. Cephalalgia. 2008;28(7):705-713.

19. Aaseth K, Grande RB, Lundqvist C, Russell MB. What is chronic headache in the general population? The Akershus study of chronic headache. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2009;(189):30-32.

20. Rueda-Sanchez M, Diaz-Martinez LA. Prevalence and associated factors for episodic and chronic daily headache in the Colombian population. Cephalalgia. 2008;28(3):216-225.

21. Katsarava Z, Dzagnidze A, Kukava M, et al. Primary headache disorders in the Republic of Georgia: prevalence and risk factors. Neurology. 2009;73(21):1796-1803.

22. da Silva A, Jr., Costa EC, Gomes JB, et al. Chronic headache and comorbidities: a two-phase, population-based, cross-sectional study. Headache. 2010;50(8):1306-1312.

23. Straube A, Pfaffenrath V, Ladwig KH, et al. Prevalence of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache in Germany--the German DMKG headache study. Cephalalgia. 2010;30(2):207-213.

24. Jonsson P, Hedenrud T, Linde M. Epidemiology of medication overuse headache in the general Swedish population. Cephalalgia. 2011;31(9):1015-1022.

25. Jonsson P, Linde M, Hensing G, Hedenrud T. Sociodemographic differences in medication use, health-care contacts and sickness absence among individuals with medication-overuse headache. J Headache Pain. 2012;13(4):281-290.

26. Linde M, Stovner LJ, Zwart JA, Hagen K. Time trends in the prevalence of headache disorders. The Nord-Trondelag Health Studies (HUNT 2 and HUNT 3). Cephalalgia. 2011;31(5):585-596.

27. Lipton RB, Manack A, Ricci JA, Chee E, Turkel CC, Winner P. Prevalence and burden of chronic migraine in adolescents: results of the chronic daily headache in adolescents study (C-dAS). Headache. 2011;51(5):693-706.

28. Ayzenberg I, Katsarava Z, Sborowski A, et al. The prevalence of primary headache disorders in Russia: a countrywide survey. Cephalalgia. 2012;32(5):373-381.

29. Ertas M, Baykan B, Orhan EK, et al. One-year prevalence and the impact of migraine and tension-type headache in Turkey: a nationwide home-based study in adults. J Headache Pain. 2012;13(2):147-157.

30. Hagen K, Linde M, Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Zwart JA. Risk factors for medication-overuse headache: an 11-year follow-up study. The Nord-Trondelag Health Studies. Pain. 2012;153(1):56-61.

31. Yu S, Liu R, Zhao G, et al. The prevalence and burden of primary headaches in China: a population-based door-to-door survey. Headache. 2012;52(4):582-591.

32. Shahbeigi S, Fereshtehnejad SM, Mohammadi N, et al. Epidemiology of headaches in Tehran urban area: a population-based cross-sectional study in district 8, year 2010. Neurol Sci. 2013;34(7):1157-66.

33. Schramm SH, Obermann M, Katsarava Z, Diener HC, Moebus S, Yoon MS. Epidemiological profiles of patients with chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache. J Headache Pain. 2013;14:40.

34. Park JW, Moon HS, Kim JM, Lee KS, Chu MK. Chronic daily headache in Korea: prevalence, clinical characteristics, medical consultation and management. J Clin Neurol. 2014;10(3):236-243.

35. Kristoffersen ES, Lundqvist C. Medication-overuse headache: epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014;5(2):87-99.

36. Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Katsarava Z, et al. The impact of headache in Europe: principal results of the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain. 2014;15:31.

37. Westergaard ML, Hansen EH, Glumer C, Jensen RH. Prescription pain medications and chronic headache in Denmark: implications for preventing medication overuse. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(7):851-860.

38. Bravo TP. Headaches of the elderly. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2015;15(6):30.

39. Mbewe E, Zairemthiama P, Yeh HH, Paul R, Birbeck GL, Steiner TJ. The epidemiology of primary headache disorders in Zambia: a population-based door-to-door survey. J Headache Pain. 2015;16:515.

40. Kulkarni GB, Rao GN, Gururaj G, Stovner LJ, Steiner TJ. Headache disorders and public ill-health in India: prevalence estimates in Karnataka State. J Headache Pain. 2015;16:67.

41. Westergaard ML, Glumer C, Hansen EH, Jensen RH. Medication overuse, healthy lifestyle behaviour and stress in chronic headache: Results from a population-based representative survey. Cephalalgia. 2016;36(1):15-28.

42. Manandhar K, Risal A, Linde M, Steiner TJ. The burden of headache disorders in Nepal: estimates from a population-based survey. J Headache Pain. 2015;17:3.

43. Zebenigus M, Tekle-Haimanot R, Worku DK, Thomas H, Steiner TJ. The prevalence of primary headache disorders in Ethiopia. J Headache Pain. 2016;17(1):110.

44. Al-Hashel JY, Ahmed SF, Alroughani R. Prevalence of Primary Headache Disorders in Kuwait. Neuroepidemiology. 2017;48(3-4):138-146.

45. Rastenyte D, Mickeviciene D, Stovner LJ, Thomas H, Andree C, Steiner TJ. Prevalence and burden of headache disorders in Lithuania and their public-health and policy implications: a population-based study within the Eurolight Project. J Headache Pain. 2017;18(1):53.

46. Henning V, Katsarava Z, Obermann M, Moebus S, Schramm S. Remission of chronic headache: Rates, potential predictors and the role of medication, follow-up results of the German Headache Consortium (GHC) Study. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(3):551-560.

47. Global Burden of Disease Neurological Disorders Collaborator Group. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(11):877-897.

Following the American Headache Society’s Scottsdale Headache Symposium in November 2018, MedPage Today posted an article which shared differing opinions from Drs. Hans-Christoph Diener and Elizabeth Loder on medication overuse headache (MOH). While Dr. Diener noted that “we can identify people with chronic migraine who are at risk to have medication overuse,” and that following successful withdrawal treatment “the majority of patients…revert to episodic migraine,” Dr. Loder pointed out that while MOH may exist and contribute to chronic migraine, “it is over-emphasized and the evidence in support of these concepts is weak.”

For this article, I’ve asked Drs. Marcelo Bigal, Rob Cowan, Jack Schim, and Stewart J. Tepper to share their perspectives on this topic. I also asked both Dr. Diener and Dr. Loder to expand on their comments. We will see Dr. Diener’s response to the article, but we did not hear back from Dr. Loder. Lastly, I will weigh in on the MOH discussion.
 

Marcelo Bigal, MD, PhD
Chief Medical Officer, Purdue Pharma

The issue of medication overuse headache (MOH) needs to be disentangled into a few separate but related issues. First, do excessive medications make migraine worse? Second, should MOH be considered a distinct form of headache? And how can evidence inform clinical practice?

Robust evidence supports the fact that excessive acute medication use is associated with increased headache frequency among migraineurs. In a large epidemiological study, we demonstrated that exposure (medication) precedes outcome (increased headache frequency).¹ The risk was higher for barbiturates, followed by opioids and triptans, and was not increased by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Dose response and critical exposure levels were identified. Based on this study and several others, we argued that criteria of causality had been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.²

However, since the effect is specific to migraine in that the exposure only increases the risk in migraineurs, not in individuals with other types of pain, we do not consider MOH a distinct entity. Instead, we believe that excessive medication is a risk factor for chronic migraine (CM). Therefore, we should be able to subdivide CM into 2 groups, one with and one without excessive medication use.

From a clinical perspective, physicians should monitor acute medication consumption in individuals with migraine and should be liberal in starting preventive therapy. In those with CM and excessive acute medication use we don’t advocate abrupt discontinuation of acute medications, since some preventive medications, especially the newer anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies, seem to work equally well in individuals with and without excessive use of medication,³ allowing more natural and gradual control of acute medication consumption without the need for detoxification.

Rob Cowan, MD, FAAN, FAHS
Higgins Professor of Neurology and Neurosciences
Chief, Division of Headache Medicine, Dept. of Neurology and Neurosciences
Director, Stanford University School of Medicine

As is often the case when 2 smart people take artificially imposed opposite positions, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. I doubt either of the debaters would argue either extreme position: MOH does not exist, or MOH when present is solely responsible for chronic daily headache (CDH). The argument that the absence of controlled studies negates the proposition fails the common-sense test: Without a controlled study, we can’t be sure that wearing a helmet when bicycling is better than not. In such a case, observational data is sufficient. Could there be confounders (eg, helmet wearers are more inclined to ride safely)? Of course, but is that important? Similarly, does the fact that some MOH patients continue with CDH after cessation of medication overuse warrant a general de-emphasis? Certainly not for the third-to-half of patients who benefit from limiting medication use.

I suspect both Drs. Diener and Loder would agree that we would benefit from better markers of chronification and that earlier intervention with at-risk patients (eg, patients with increasing headache frequency, severity or duration but still in the episodic phase).

Jack Schim, MD
Co-Director, The Headache Center of Southern California

There has long been recognition that overuse of analgesic medications can be linked to progression of headache disorders. MOH was initially described by Dr. Lee Kudrow in 1982, in a chapter entitled, “Paradoxical effects of frequent analgesic use.”⁴ The most recent edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) description does not entail features that imply causality. While there is epidemiologic observation of correlation between frequent analgesic use and progression of primary headache disorders, the causal relationship is often obscured by the facts. Overuse of acute medications is quite common in individuals with CM, but not all with CM overuse medications.

In the article being discussed, Drs. Diener and Loder reviewed facts and opinions. They helped clarify that while MOH is widely recognized, much of what is known is descriptive, and not based on solid science. From their presentations, we can conclude that we can recognize MOH based on ICHD-3 criteria, but we cannot tell an individual with chronic headache whether we can best help them by educating them, or by adjusting preventives, or both. The call to action is clear; we need to evaluate best therapeutic approaches in an empiric fashion. Our best new therapies for migraine prevention, CGRP mAbs, work for the majority of patients, with minimal side effects, even in the face of what has been considered MOH. Now, we need to strategize how best to approach these clinically challenged individuals. We need to avoid further stigmatizing our patients. Let’s recognize that our patients do not fail preventives, the prior preventives have failed our patients. Can the introduction of highly effective, well tolerated preventives at an earlier stage help avoid chronification that may drive medication overuse?

Stewart J. Tepper, MD, FAHS
Professor of Neurology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

It is clear that overuse of some acute medication is detrimental to patient health. Examples of this include analgesic nephropathy or peptic ulcer disease, and exacerbation of depression with overuse of barbiturate compounds or benzodiazepines. Few doubt the health merits of reduction of acute medication overuse, regardless of whether the acute medications can be proven to transform episodic migraine (EM) to CM.

The good news is that the issues of the existence of true MOH and its proper management are rapidly becoming less important. OnabotulinumtoxinA use decreases triptan use in multiple randomized controlled trials for CM prevention.

Each of the anti-CGRP and anti-CGRP receptor monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been effective in preventing CM with medication overuse. All have lowered acute medication use, both triptans and analgesics. It is worth noting, however, that in both the OnabotulinumtoxinA and mAb trials, over-users of opioids and barbiturates were excluded. The mAbs converted patients from acute medication overuse to non-overuse, and from CM with medication overuse to EM without medication. These changes occurred without specific plans for weaning acute medication in place.

Accordingly, patients with CM with acute medication overuse should be treated with optimal prevention, and the evidence is strongest for use of the mAbs to both reduce mean monthly migraine days and all acute medication use, both triptans and analgesics. The new monoclonal antibody effectiveness may make the old arguments moot.

Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD
University of Essen, Germany

I think no one doubts that MOH exists. The worldwide prevalence is between 1% and 2% (Table). The dilemma is that the diagnosis can only be made after the intake of acute medication has been reduced. There are confounders: migraine can improve irrespective of the reduction of acute medication and many physicians will implement migraine prevention at the time of withdrawal. No randomized trial compared the continuation of unchanged intake of medication to treat migraine attacks with reduction or withdrawal.

+++

Commentary by Alan M. Rapoport, MD

The above comments by my associates are very informative and help the reader to better understand the arguments about MOH. When Dr. Lee Kudrow taught me and my partner Dr. Fred Sheftell about the entity of analgesic and ergotamine overuse headaches in 1979, we set out to find those patients, observe and treat them. We did not have to wait long as so many patients with frequent and severe headaches came to see us with what we now term “medication overuse headache.” They told us that they had fewer headaches several years before and increased the use of acute care medications as their headaches increased in frequency. They were unaware of the probability that their headaches increased in frequency because their medication did. Some would argue that they increased their intake to feel better as the headache increased on their own.

Of course, we were not sure of the cause and effect, but we saw the result of tapering the acute care medications, whether or not we used preventives, hospitalized those patients or treated them with behavioral medicine approaches, etc. We observed that the combination of these treatments seemed to work better than just detox, but we did not do the proper studies to prove it. We also noticed that about 30% to 40% of patients did not improve as well as others, and daily or near-daily headaches continued, often of a lesser intensity. Almost all felt better in general and had fewer adverse events from the medication. The decrease in those medications was undoubtedly better for their brain function, livers and kidneys.

I do believe that medication overuse makes most patients with frequent EM or CM worse and we should educate patients to avoid it. I agree with Dr. Bigal that preventive medications may help some patients to improve despite the excessive use of acute care medication, but I am not sure that the older preventives work as well and certainly not as quickly as the newer ones. Recently I have seen the anti-CGRP mAbs work wonders with some of my patients who could not decrease their triptan intake. They just stop using the triptans as their headaches decrease on these therapies.

There is another interesting phenomenon that I have seen in practice—mostly with butalbital products, which I no longer prescribe. Forty years ago, patients would say that they only had 4 headaches per month lasting 1 to 2 days and I would prescribe 10 pills for them. They would call in 2 weeks and say they needed more. When queried they would invariably say it worked so well on the bad headaches and made them feel so much better, that they took 1 or 2 on days they thought they were going to get a headache and it prevented them from forming. They were soon taking it frequently and over time they were dependent on the medication, and then it stopped working and was difficult to withdraw.

Dr. Loder’s point that the studies on MOH have not proven that medication overuse causes it may be technically true; but it would be unethical to start patients on too much medication and randomize some to stay on and some to taper off. Dr. Kudrow came the closest by taking existing MOH patients and treating half with withdrawal and half of each with preventives. His breakthrough study in 1982 “proved” the existence of analgesic rebound and directed us to the best treatment at that time.⁴ This was the first study to examine the effect of stopping the overuse of medication to see the results.

Finally, I am unhappy that ICHD-3 has defined MOH only by number of days of medication use, not at all considering whether or not the patient develops a new type of headache, a worse type or more frequent headache (the way it was in previous versions). We have all seen patients taking 3 triptans per day on their own or with our suggestion, and many actually do better with no headache, for a period of time. This is medication overuse by definition, but not MOH, as they have little headache. But we do not recognize this entity.

The good news is, with education and anti-CGRP therapies, we will probably see less MOH in the future, or at least know better how to treat it.

+++

References

1. Bigal ME, Serrano D, Buse D, et al. Acute migraine medications and evolution from episodic to chronic migraine: a longitudinal population-based study. Headache. 2008;48(8):1157-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2008.01217.x. PubMed PMID: 18808500.

2. Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Overuse of acute migraine medications and migraine chronification. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2009;13(4):301-7. PubMed PMID: 19586594.

3. Bigal ME, Edvinsson L, Rapoport AM, et al. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of TEV-48125 for preventive treatment of chronic migraine: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(11):1091-100. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00245-8. PubMed PMID: 26432181.

4. Kudrow L. Paradoxical Effects of Frequent Analgesic Use. Advances in Neurology. 1982;33:335-341.

5. Diener HC, Holle D, Dresler T, Gaul C. Chronic Headache Due to Overuse of Analgesics and Anti-Migraine Agents. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115(22):365-370.

6. Westergaard ML, Glumer C, Hansen EH, Jensen RH. Prevalence of chronic headache with and without medication overuse: associations with socioeconomic position and physical and mental health status. Pain. 2014;155(10):2005-2013.

7. Castillo J, Munoz P, Guitera V, Pascual J. Epidemiology of chronic daily headache in the general population. Headache. 1999;39:190-196.

8. Wang SJ, Fuh JL, Lu SR, et al. Chronic daily headache in chinese elderly - prevalence, risk factors, and biannual follow-up. Neurology. 2000;54:314-319.

9. Lu SR, Fuh JL, Chen WT, Juang KD, Wang SJ. Chronic daily headache in Taipei, Taiwan: prevalence, follow-up and outcome predictors. Cephalalgia. 2001;21:980-986.

10. Pascual J, Colas R, Castillo J. Epidemiology of chronic daily headache. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2001;5(6):529-536.

11. Prencipe M, Casini AR, Ferretti C, et al. Prevalence of headache in an elderly population: attack frequency, disability, and use of medication. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;70(3):377-381.

12. Colas R, Munoz P, Temprano R, Gomez C, Pascual J. Chronic daily headache with analgesic overuse: epidemiology and impact on quality of life. Neurology. 2004;62:1338-1342.

13. Zwart J, Dyb G, Hagen K, Svebak S, Stovner L, Holmen J. Analgesic overuse among subjects with headache, neck, and low back pain. Neurology. 2004;62:1540-1544.

14. Dyb G, Holmen TL, Zwart JA. Analgesic overuse among adolescents with headache: the Head-HUNT-Youth Study. Neurology. 2006;66(2):198-201.

15. Wang SJ, Fuh JL, Lu SR, Juang KD. Chronic daily headache in adolescents: prevalence, impact, and medication overuse. Neurology. 2006;66(2):193-197.

16. Wiendels NJ, Knuistingh NA, Rosendaal FR, et al. Chronic frequent headache in the general population: prevalence and associated factors. Cephalalgia. 2006;26(12):1434-1442.

17. Stovner L, Hagen K, Jensen R, et al. The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability worldwide. Cephalalgia. 2007;27(3):193-210.

18. Aaseth K, Grande RB, Kvaerner KJ, Gulbrandsen P, Lundqvist C, Russell MB. Prevalence of secondary chronic headaches in a population-based sample of 30-44-year-old persons. The Akershus study of chronic headache. Cephalalgia. 2008;28(7):705-713.

19. Aaseth K, Grande RB, Lundqvist C, Russell MB. What is chronic headache in the general population? The Akershus study of chronic headache. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2009;(189):30-32.

20. Rueda-Sanchez M, Diaz-Martinez LA. Prevalence and associated factors for episodic and chronic daily headache in the Colombian population. Cephalalgia. 2008;28(3):216-225.

21. Katsarava Z, Dzagnidze A, Kukava M, et al. Primary headache disorders in the Republic of Georgia: prevalence and risk factors. Neurology. 2009;73(21):1796-1803.

22. da Silva A, Jr., Costa EC, Gomes JB, et al. Chronic headache and comorbidities: a two-phase, population-based, cross-sectional study. Headache. 2010;50(8):1306-1312.

23. Straube A, Pfaffenrath V, Ladwig KH, et al. Prevalence of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache in Germany--the German DMKG headache study. Cephalalgia. 2010;30(2):207-213.

24. Jonsson P, Hedenrud T, Linde M. Epidemiology of medication overuse headache in the general Swedish population. Cephalalgia. 2011;31(9):1015-1022.

25. Jonsson P, Linde M, Hensing G, Hedenrud T. Sociodemographic differences in medication use, health-care contacts and sickness absence among individuals with medication-overuse headache. J Headache Pain. 2012;13(4):281-290.

26. Linde M, Stovner LJ, Zwart JA, Hagen K. Time trends in the prevalence of headache disorders. The Nord-Trondelag Health Studies (HUNT 2 and HUNT 3). Cephalalgia. 2011;31(5):585-596.

27. Lipton RB, Manack A, Ricci JA, Chee E, Turkel CC, Winner P. Prevalence and burden of chronic migraine in adolescents: results of the chronic daily headache in adolescents study (C-dAS). Headache. 2011;51(5):693-706.

28. Ayzenberg I, Katsarava Z, Sborowski A, et al. The prevalence of primary headache disorders in Russia: a countrywide survey. Cephalalgia. 2012;32(5):373-381.

29. Ertas M, Baykan B, Orhan EK, et al. One-year prevalence and the impact of migraine and tension-type headache in Turkey: a nationwide home-based study in adults. J Headache Pain. 2012;13(2):147-157.

30. Hagen K, Linde M, Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Zwart JA. Risk factors for medication-overuse headache: an 11-year follow-up study. The Nord-Trondelag Health Studies. Pain. 2012;153(1):56-61.

31. Yu S, Liu R, Zhao G, et al. The prevalence and burden of primary headaches in China: a population-based door-to-door survey. Headache. 2012;52(4):582-591.

32. Shahbeigi S, Fereshtehnejad SM, Mohammadi N, et al. Epidemiology of headaches in Tehran urban area: a population-based cross-sectional study in district 8, year 2010. Neurol Sci. 2013;34(7):1157-66.

33. Schramm SH, Obermann M, Katsarava Z, Diener HC, Moebus S, Yoon MS. Epidemiological profiles of patients with chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache. J Headache Pain. 2013;14:40.

34. Park JW, Moon HS, Kim JM, Lee KS, Chu MK. Chronic daily headache in Korea: prevalence, clinical characteristics, medical consultation and management. J Clin Neurol. 2014;10(3):236-243.

35. Kristoffersen ES, Lundqvist C. Medication-overuse headache: epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014;5(2):87-99.

36. Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Katsarava Z, et al. The impact of headache in Europe: principal results of the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain. 2014;15:31.

37. Westergaard ML, Hansen EH, Glumer C, Jensen RH. Prescription pain medications and chronic headache in Denmark: implications for preventing medication overuse. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(7):851-860.

38. Bravo TP. Headaches of the elderly. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2015;15(6):30.

39. Mbewe E, Zairemthiama P, Yeh HH, Paul R, Birbeck GL, Steiner TJ. The epidemiology of primary headache disorders in Zambia: a population-based door-to-door survey. J Headache Pain. 2015;16:515.

40. Kulkarni GB, Rao GN, Gururaj G, Stovner LJ, Steiner TJ. Headache disorders and public ill-health in India: prevalence estimates in Karnataka State. J Headache Pain. 2015;16:67.

41. Westergaard ML, Glumer C, Hansen EH, Jensen RH. Medication overuse, healthy lifestyle behaviour and stress in chronic headache: Results from a population-based representative survey. Cephalalgia. 2016;36(1):15-28.

42. Manandhar K, Risal A, Linde M, Steiner TJ. The burden of headache disorders in Nepal: estimates from a population-based survey. J Headache Pain. 2015;17:3.

43. Zebenigus M, Tekle-Haimanot R, Worku DK, Thomas H, Steiner TJ. The prevalence of primary headache disorders in Ethiopia. J Headache Pain. 2016;17(1):110.

44. Al-Hashel JY, Ahmed SF, Alroughani R. Prevalence of Primary Headache Disorders in Kuwait. Neuroepidemiology. 2017;48(3-4):138-146.

45. Rastenyte D, Mickeviciene D, Stovner LJ, Thomas H, Andree C, Steiner TJ. Prevalence and burden of headache disorders in Lithuania and their public-health and policy implications: a population-based study within the Eurolight Project. J Headache Pain. 2017;18(1):53.

46. Henning V, Katsarava Z, Obermann M, Moebus S, Schramm S. Remission of chronic headache: Rates, potential predictors and the role of medication, follow-up results of the German Headache Consortium (GHC) Study. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(3):551-560.

47. Global Burden of Disease Neurological Disorders Collaborator Group. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(11):877-897.

Following the American Headache Society’s Scottsdale Headache Symposium in November 2018, MedPage Today posted an article which shared differing opinions from Drs. Hans-Christoph Diener and Elizabeth Loder on medication overuse headache (MOH). While Dr. Diener noted that “we can identify people with chronic migraine who are at risk to have medication overuse,” and that following successful withdrawal treatment “the majority of patients…revert to episodic migraine,” Dr. Loder pointed out that while MOH may exist and contribute to chronic migraine, “it is over-emphasized and the evidence in support of these concepts is weak.”

For this article, I’ve asked Drs. Marcelo Bigal, Rob Cowan, Jack Schim, and Stewart J. Tepper to share their perspectives on this topic. I also asked both Dr. Diener and Dr. Loder to expand on their comments. We will see Dr. Diener’s response to the article, but we did not hear back from Dr. Loder. Lastly, I will weigh in on the MOH discussion.
 

Marcelo Bigal, MD, PhD
Chief Medical Officer, Purdue Pharma

The issue of medication overuse headache (MOH) needs to be disentangled into a few separate but related issues. First, do excessive medications make migraine worse? Second, should MOH be considered a distinct form of headache? And how can evidence inform clinical practice?

Robust evidence supports the fact that excessive acute medication use is associated with increased headache frequency among migraineurs. In a large epidemiological study, we demonstrated that exposure (medication) precedes outcome (increased headache frequency).¹ The risk was higher for barbiturates, followed by opioids and triptans, and was not increased by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Dose response and critical exposure levels were identified. Based on this study and several others, we argued that criteria of causality had been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.²

However, since the effect is specific to migraine in that the exposure only increases the risk in migraineurs, not in individuals with other types of pain, we do not consider MOH a distinct entity. Instead, we believe that excessive medication is a risk factor for chronic migraine (CM). Therefore, we should be able to subdivide CM into 2 groups, one with and one without excessive medication use.

From a clinical perspective, physicians should monitor acute medication consumption in individuals with migraine and should be liberal in starting preventive therapy. In those with CM and excessive acute medication use we don’t advocate abrupt discontinuation of acute medications, since some preventive medications, especially the newer anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies, seem to work equally well in individuals with and without excessive use of medication,³ allowing more natural and gradual control of acute medication consumption without the need for detoxification.

Rob Cowan, MD, FAAN, FAHS
Higgins Professor of Neurology and Neurosciences
Chief, Division of Headache Medicine, Dept. of Neurology and Neurosciences
Director, Stanford University School of Medicine

As is often the case when 2 smart people take artificially imposed opposite positions, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. I doubt either of the debaters would argue either extreme position: MOH does not exist, or MOH when present is solely responsible for chronic daily headache (CDH). The argument that the absence of controlled studies negates the proposition fails the common-sense test: Without a controlled study, we can’t be sure that wearing a helmet when bicycling is better than not. In such a case, observational data is sufficient. Could there be confounders (eg, helmet wearers are more inclined to ride safely)? Of course, but is that important? Similarly, does the fact that some MOH patients continue with CDH after cessation of medication overuse warrant a general de-emphasis? Certainly not for the third-to-half of patients who benefit from limiting medication use.

I suspect both Drs. Diener and Loder would agree that we would benefit from better markers of chronification and that earlier intervention with at-risk patients (eg, patients with increasing headache frequency, severity or duration but still in the episodic phase).

Jack Schim, MD
Co-Director, The Headache Center of Southern California

There has long been recognition that overuse of analgesic medications can be linked to progression of headache disorders. MOH was initially described by Dr. Lee Kudrow in 1982, in a chapter entitled, “Paradoxical effects of frequent analgesic use.”⁴ The most recent edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) description does not entail features that imply causality. While there is epidemiologic observation of correlation between frequent analgesic use and progression of primary headache disorders, the causal relationship is often obscured by the facts. Overuse of acute medications is quite common in individuals with CM, but not all with CM overuse medications.

In the article being discussed, Drs. Diener and Loder reviewed facts and opinions. They helped clarify that while MOH is widely recognized, much of what is known is descriptive, and not based on solid science. From their presentations, we can conclude that we can recognize MOH based on ICHD-3 criteria, but we cannot tell an individual with chronic headache whether we can best help them by educating them, or by adjusting preventives, or both. The call to action is clear; we need to evaluate best therapeutic approaches in an empiric fashion. Our best new therapies for migraine prevention, CGRP mAbs, work for the majority of patients, with minimal side effects, even in the face of what has been considered MOH. Now, we need to strategize how best to approach these clinically challenged individuals. We need to avoid further stigmatizing our patients. Let’s recognize that our patients do not fail preventives, the prior preventives have failed our patients. Can the introduction of highly effective, well tolerated preventives at an earlier stage help avoid chronification that may drive medication overuse?

Stewart J. Tepper, MD, FAHS
Professor of Neurology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

It is clear that overuse of some acute medication is detrimental to patient health. Examples of this include analgesic nephropathy or peptic ulcer disease, and exacerbation of depression with overuse of barbiturate compounds or benzodiazepines. Few doubt the health merits of reduction of acute medication overuse, regardless of whether the acute medications can be proven to transform episodic migraine (EM) to CM.

The good news is that the issues of the existence of true MOH and its proper management are rapidly becoming less important. OnabotulinumtoxinA use decreases triptan use in multiple randomized controlled trials for CM prevention.

Each of the anti-CGRP and anti-CGRP receptor monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been effective in preventing CM with medication overuse. All have lowered acute medication use, both triptans and analgesics. It is worth noting, however, that in both the OnabotulinumtoxinA and mAb trials, over-users of opioids and barbiturates were excluded. The mAbs converted patients from acute medication overuse to non-overuse, and from CM with medication overuse to EM without medication. These changes occurred without specific plans for weaning acute medication in place.

Accordingly, patients with CM with acute medication overuse should be treated with optimal prevention, and the evidence is strongest for use of the mAbs to both reduce mean monthly migraine days and all acute medication use, both triptans and analgesics. The new monoclonal antibody effectiveness may make the old arguments moot.

Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD
University of Essen, Germany

I think no one doubts that MOH exists. The worldwide prevalence is between 1% and 2% (Table). The dilemma is that the diagnosis can only be made after the intake of acute medication has been reduced. There are confounders: migraine can improve irrespective of the reduction of acute medication and many physicians will implement migraine prevention at the time of withdrawal. No randomized trial compared the continuation of unchanged intake of medication to treat migraine attacks with reduction or withdrawal.

+++

Commentary by Alan M. Rapoport, MD

The above comments by my associates are very informative and help the reader to better understand the arguments about MOH. When Dr. Lee Kudrow taught me and my partner Dr. Fred Sheftell about the entity of analgesic and ergotamine overuse headaches in 1979, we set out to find those patients, observe and treat them. We did not have to wait long as so many patients with frequent and severe headaches came to see us with what we now term “medication overuse headache.” They told us that they had fewer headaches several years before and increased the use of acute care medications as their headaches increased in frequency. They were unaware of the probability that their headaches increased in frequency because their medication did. Some would argue that they increased their intake to feel better as the headache increased on their own.

Of course, we were not sure of the cause and effect, but we saw the result of tapering the acute care medications, whether or not we used preventives, hospitalized those patients or treated them with behavioral medicine approaches, etc. We observed that the combination of these treatments seemed to work better than just detox, but we did not do the proper studies to prove it. We also noticed that about 30% to 40% of patients did not improve as well as others, and daily or near-daily headaches continued, often of a lesser intensity. Almost all felt better in general and had fewer adverse events from the medication. The decrease in those medications was undoubtedly better for their brain function, livers and kidneys.

I do believe that medication overuse makes most patients with frequent EM or CM worse and we should educate patients to avoid it. I agree with Dr. Bigal that preventive medications may help some patients to improve despite the excessive use of acute care medication, but I am not sure that the older preventives work as well and certainly not as quickly as the newer ones. Recently I have seen the anti-CGRP mAbs work wonders with some of my patients who could not decrease their triptan intake. They just stop using the triptans as their headaches decrease on these therapies.

There is another interesting phenomenon that I have seen in practice—mostly with butalbital products, which I no longer prescribe. Forty years ago, patients would say that they only had 4 headaches per month lasting 1 to 2 days and I would prescribe 10 pills for them. They would call in 2 weeks and say they needed more. When queried they would invariably say it worked so well on the bad headaches and made them feel so much better, that they took 1 or 2 on days they thought they were going to get a headache and it prevented them from forming. They were soon taking it frequently and over time they were dependent on the medication, and then it stopped working and was difficult to withdraw.

Dr. Loder’s point that the studies on MOH have not proven that medication overuse causes it may be technically true; but it would be unethical to start patients on too much medication and randomize some to stay on and some to taper off. Dr. Kudrow came the closest by taking existing MOH patients and treating half with withdrawal and half of each with preventives. His breakthrough study in 1982 “proved” the existence of analgesic rebound and directed us to the best treatment at that time.⁴ This was the first study to examine the effect of stopping the overuse of medication to see the results.

Finally, I am unhappy that ICHD-3 has defined MOH only by number of days of medication use, not at all considering whether or not the patient develops a new type of headache, a worse type or more frequent headache (the way it was in previous versions). We have all seen patients taking 3 triptans per day on their own or with our suggestion, and many actually do better with no headache, for a period of time. This is medication overuse by definition, but not MOH, as they have little headache. But we do not recognize this entity.

The good news is, with education and anti-CGRP therapies, we will probably see less MOH in the future, or at least know better how to treat it.

+++

References

1. Bigal ME, Serrano D, Buse D, et al. Acute migraine medications and evolution from episodic to chronic migraine: a longitudinal population-based study. Headache. 2008;48(8):1157-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2008.01217.x. PubMed PMID: 18808500.

2. Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Overuse of acute migraine medications and migraine chronification. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2009;13(4):301-7. PubMed PMID: 19586594.

3. Bigal ME, Edvinsson L, Rapoport AM, et al. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of TEV-48125 for preventive treatment of chronic migraine: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(11):1091-100. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00245-8. PubMed PMID: 26432181.

4. Kudrow L. Paradoxical Effects of Frequent Analgesic Use. Advances in Neurology. 1982;33:335-341.

5. Diener HC, Holle D, Dresler T, Gaul C. Chronic Headache Due to Overuse of Analgesics and Anti-Migraine Agents. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115(22):365-370.

6. Westergaard ML, Glumer C, Hansen EH, Jensen RH. Prevalence of chronic headache with and without medication overuse: associations with socioeconomic position and physical and mental health status. Pain. 2014;155(10):2005-2013.

7. Castillo J, Munoz P, Guitera V, Pascual J. Epidemiology of chronic daily headache in the general population. Headache. 1999;39:190-196.

8. Wang SJ, Fuh JL, Lu SR, et al. Chronic daily headache in chinese elderly - prevalence, risk factors, and biannual follow-up. Neurology. 2000;54:314-319.

9. Lu SR, Fuh JL, Chen WT, Juang KD, Wang SJ. Chronic daily headache in Taipei, Taiwan: prevalence, follow-up and outcome predictors. Cephalalgia. 2001;21:980-986.

10. Pascual J, Colas R, Castillo J. Epidemiology of chronic daily headache. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2001;5(6):529-536.

11. Prencipe M, Casini AR, Ferretti C, et al. Prevalence of headache in an elderly population: attack frequency, disability, and use of medication. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;70(3):377-381.

12. Colas R, Munoz P, Temprano R, Gomez C, Pascual J. Chronic daily headache with analgesic overuse: epidemiology and impact on quality of life. Neurology. 2004;62:1338-1342.

13. Zwart J, Dyb G, Hagen K, Svebak S, Stovner L, Holmen J. Analgesic overuse among subjects with headache, neck, and low back pain. Neurology. 2004;62:1540-1544.

14. Dyb G, Holmen TL, Zwart JA. Analgesic overuse among adolescents with headache: the Head-HUNT-Youth Study. Neurology. 2006;66(2):198-201.

15. Wang SJ, Fuh JL, Lu SR, Juang KD. Chronic daily headache in adolescents: prevalence, impact, and medication overuse. Neurology. 2006;66(2):193-197.

16. Wiendels NJ, Knuistingh NA, Rosendaal FR, et al. Chronic frequent headache in the general population: prevalence and associated factors. Cephalalgia. 2006;26(12):1434-1442.

17. Stovner L, Hagen K, Jensen R, et al. The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability worldwide. Cephalalgia. 2007;27(3):193-210.

18. Aaseth K, Grande RB, Kvaerner KJ, Gulbrandsen P, Lundqvist C, Russell MB. Prevalence of secondary chronic headaches in a population-based sample of 30-44-year-old persons. The Akershus study of chronic headache. Cephalalgia. 2008;28(7):705-713.

19. Aaseth K, Grande RB, Lundqvist C, Russell MB. What is chronic headache in the general population? The Akershus study of chronic headache. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2009;(189):30-32.

20. Rueda-Sanchez M, Diaz-Martinez LA. Prevalence and associated factors for episodic and chronic daily headache in the Colombian population. Cephalalgia. 2008;28(3):216-225.

21. Katsarava Z, Dzagnidze A, Kukava M, et al. Primary headache disorders in the Republic of Georgia: prevalence and risk factors. Neurology. 2009;73(21):1796-1803.

22. da Silva A, Jr., Costa EC, Gomes JB, et al. Chronic headache and comorbidities: a two-phase, population-based, cross-sectional study. Headache. 2010;50(8):1306-1312.

23. Straube A, Pfaffenrath V, Ladwig KH, et al. Prevalence of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache in Germany--the German DMKG headache study. Cephalalgia. 2010;30(2):207-213.

24. Jonsson P, Hedenrud T, Linde M. Epidemiology of medication overuse headache in the general Swedish population. Cephalalgia. 2011;31(9):1015-1022.

25. Jonsson P, Linde M, Hensing G, Hedenrud T. Sociodemographic differences in medication use, health-care contacts and sickness absence among individuals with medication-overuse headache. J Headache Pain. 2012;13(4):281-290.

26. Linde M, Stovner LJ, Zwart JA, Hagen K. Time trends in the prevalence of headache disorders. The Nord-Trondelag Health Studies (HUNT 2 and HUNT 3). Cephalalgia. 2011;31(5):585-596.

27. Lipton RB, Manack A, Ricci JA, Chee E, Turkel CC, Winner P. Prevalence and burden of chronic migraine in adolescents: results of the chronic daily headache in adolescents study (C-dAS). Headache. 2011;51(5):693-706.

28. Ayzenberg I, Katsarava Z, Sborowski A, et al. The prevalence of primary headache disorders in Russia: a countrywide survey. Cephalalgia. 2012;32(5):373-381.

29. Ertas M, Baykan B, Orhan EK, et al. One-year prevalence and the impact of migraine and tension-type headache in Turkey: a nationwide home-based study in adults. J Headache Pain. 2012;13(2):147-157.

30. Hagen K, Linde M, Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Zwart JA. Risk factors for medication-overuse headache: an 11-year follow-up study. The Nord-Trondelag Health Studies. Pain. 2012;153(1):56-61.

31. Yu S, Liu R, Zhao G, et al. The prevalence and burden of primary headaches in China: a population-based door-to-door survey. Headache. 2012;52(4):582-591.

32. Shahbeigi S, Fereshtehnejad SM, Mohammadi N, et al. Epidemiology of headaches in Tehran urban area: a population-based cross-sectional study in district 8, year 2010. Neurol Sci. 2013;34(7):1157-66.

33. Schramm SH, Obermann M, Katsarava Z, Diener HC, Moebus S, Yoon MS. Epidemiological profiles of patients with chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache. J Headache Pain. 2013;14:40.

34. Park JW, Moon HS, Kim JM, Lee KS, Chu MK. Chronic daily headache in Korea: prevalence, clinical characteristics, medical consultation and management. J Clin Neurol. 2014;10(3):236-243.

35. Kristoffersen ES, Lundqvist C. Medication-overuse headache: epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2014;5(2):87-99.

36. Steiner TJ, Stovner LJ, Katsarava Z, et al. The impact of headache in Europe: principal results of the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain. 2014;15:31.

37. Westergaard ML, Hansen EH, Glumer C, Jensen RH. Prescription pain medications and chronic headache in Denmark: implications for preventing medication overuse. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(7):851-860.

38. Bravo TP. Headaches of the elderly. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2015;15(6):30.

39. Mbewe E, Zairemthiama P, Yeh HH, Paul R, Birbeck GL, Steiner TJ. The epidemiology of primary headache disorders in Zambia: a population-based door-to-door survey. J Headache Pain. 2015;16:515.

40. Kulkarni GB, Rao GN, Gururaj G, Stovner LJ, Steiner TJ. Headache disorders and public ill-health in India: prevalence estimates in Karnataka State. J Headache Pain. 2015;16:67.

41. Westergaard ML, Glumer C, Hansen EH, Jensen RH. Medication overuse, healthy lifestyle behaviour and stress in chronic headache: Results from a population-based representative survey. Cephalalgia. 2016;36(1):15-28.

42. Manandhar K, Risal A, Linde M, Steiner TJ. The burden of headache disorders in Nepal: estimates from a population-based survey. J Headache Pain. 2015;17:3.

43. Zebenigus M, Tekle-Haimanot R, Worku DK, Thomas H, Steiner TJ. The prevalence of primary headache disorders in Ethiopia. J Headache Pain. 2016;17(1):110.

44. Al-Hashel JY, Ahmed SF, Alroughani R. Prevalence of Primary Headache Disorders in Kuwait. Neuroepidemiology. 2017;48(3-4):138-146.

45. Rastenyte D, Mickeviciene D, Stovner LJ, Thomas H, Andree C, Steiner TJ. Prevalence and burden of headache disorders in Lithuania and their public-health and policy implications: a population-based study within the Eurolight Project. J Headache Pain. 2017;18(1):53.

46. Henning V, Katsarava Z, Obermann M, Moebus S, Schramm S. Remission of chronic headache: Rates, potential predictors and the role of medication, follow-up results of the German Headache Consortium (GHC) Study. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(3):551-560.

47. Global Burden of Disease Neurological Disorders Collaborator Group. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(11):877-897.

First-line treatment of multiple sclerosis with a high-efficacy therapy may produce better long-term outcomes than does an escalation treatment approach, data from a real-world cohort study suggest.

In a population-based cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in southeast Wales, those who initiated treatment with a high-efficacy therapy had a smaller average increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score after 5 years, compared with patients who started on moderate-efficacy therapy, researchers reported Feb. 18 in JAMA Neurology. These outcomes occurred “despite clinical surveillance and targeted escalation” in the group of patients who started on moderate-efficacy drugs, said first author Katharine Harding, PhD, of Cardiff University and the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff and the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Wales, and her colleagues. “These findings suggest that real-world escalation approaches may be inadequate to prevent unfavorable long-term outcomes and support the need for a prospective clinical trial to compare disease-modifying therapy algorithms.”

The investigators analyzed data collected between January 1998 and December 2016 from 592 patients with MS. Of the 592 patients, 104 initiated treatment with alemtuzumab (Lemtrada) or natalizumab (Tysabri), which the researchers classified as high-efficacy therapies (i.e., early intensive treatment), and 488 initiated treatment with interferons, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod (Gilenya), or teriflunomide (Aubagio), which were considered moderate-efficacy therapies (i.e., escalation approach).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Harding K et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4905

First-line treatment of multiple sclerosis with a high-efficacy therapy may produce better long-term outcomes than does an escalation treatment approach, data from a real-world cohort study suggest.

In a population-based cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in southeast Wales, those who initiated treatment with a high-efficacy therapy had a smaller average increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score after 5 years, compared with patients who started on moderate-efficacy therapy, researchers reported Feb. 18 in JAMA Neurology. These outcomes occurred “despite clinical surveillance and targeted escalation” in the group of patients who started on moderate-efficacy drugs, said first author Katharine Harding, PhD, of Cardiff University and the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff and the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Wales, and her colleagues. “These findings suggest that real-world escalation approaches may be inadequate to prevent unfavorable long-term outcomes and support the need for a prospective clinical trial to compare disease-modifying therapy algorithms.”

The investigators analyzed data collected between January 1998 and December 2016 from 592 patients with MS. Of the 592 patients, 104 initiated treatment with alemtuzumab (Lemtrada) or natalizumab (Tysabri), which the researchers classified as high-efficacy therapies (i.e., early intensive treatment), and 488 initiated treatment with interferons, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod (Gilenya), or teriflunomide (Aubagio), which were considered moderate-efficacy therapies (i.e., escalation approach).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Harding K et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4905

First-line treatment of multiple sclerosis with a high-efficacy therapy may produce better long-term outcomes than does an escalation treatment approach, data from a real-world cohort study suggest.

In a population-based cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in southeast Wales, those who initiated treatment with a high-efficacy therapy had a smaller average increase in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score after 5 years, compared with patients who started on moderate-efficacy therapy, researchers reported Feb. 18 in JAMA Neurology. These outcomes occurred “despite clinical surveillance and targeted escalation” in the group of patients who started on moderate-efficacy drugs, said first author Katharine Harding, PhD, of Cardiff University and the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff and the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Wales, and her colleagues. “These findings suggest that real-world escalation approaches may be inadequate to prevent unfavorable long-term outcomes and support the need for a prospective clinical trial to compare disease-modifying therapy algorithms.”

The investigators analyzed data collected between January 1998 and December 2016 from 592 patients with MS. Of the 592 patients, 104 initiated treatment with alemtuzumab (Lemtrada) or natalizumab (Tysabri), which the researchers classified as high-efficacy therapies (i.e., early intensive treatment), and 488 initiated treatment with interferons, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod (Gilenya), or teriflunomide (Aubagio), which were considered moderate-efficacy therapies (i.e., escalation approach).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Harding K et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4905

The etiology of psoriasis is multifactorial, and it is attributed to both genetic and environmental components.¹ One of the lesser-studied aspects of psoriasis pathogenesis is the involvement of the nervous system. It is thought that the pathogenesis involves inflammation of the cutaneous nerves,² and cutaneous denervation has been shown to improve acanthosis and IL-23 expression in mice with psoriasiform skin.³ There also have been reports of psoriasis remission following peripheral and central nervous system injury from surgical nerve resection⁴ as well as cerebrovascular accident.⁵ We present a case of total psoriasis clearance following ischemic stroke.

Case Report

A 52-year-old man with psoriasis presented to the dermatology clinic for follow-up. The patient had been using topical clobetasol and apremilast with limited success but had not previously tried biologics. On physical examination he was noted to have erythematous, scaly, indurated papules and plaques on the chest, abdomen, back, arms, and legs, consistent with psoriasis. Affected body surface area was approximately 10%. Ustekinumab was prescribed, but the patient did not pick it up from the pharmacy.

Approximately 1 month later, the patient presented to the emergency department with left-sided weakness and numbness. He was hospitalized for treatment of stroke. During hospitalization, the patient was started on lisinopril, aspirin, and atorvastatin. He also was given subcutaneous enoxaparin with plans to initiate warfarin as an outpatient. His psoriasis was not treated with topical or systemic medications during the course of his admission. He was discharged to a skilled nursing facility after 3 days.

Three months following discharge, the patient returned to the dermatology clinic for follow-up. After his stroke, he reported that his psoriasis had cleared and had not returned. On physical examination his skin was clear of psoriatic lesions.

Comment

The nervous system is thought to play an important role in the pathophysiology of psoriasis. Evidence for this involvement includes the exacerbation of psoriasis with stress and the often symmetric distribution of psoriatic lesions.⁶

Moreover, numerous neuropeptides have been identified in the pathophysiology of psoriasis. Farber et al⁷ first proposed that release of substance P (SP) from cutaneous sensory nerve fibers causes a local neurogenic response that triggers psoriasis in predisposed individuals. The role of SP in psoriasis is unclear, as there have been reports of both higher⁸ and lower⁹ levels in involved and noninvolved skin of psoriatic patients compared to skin in healthy individuals. It has been suggested that numerous other neuropeptides, including nerve growth factor (NGF), calcitonin gene-related peptide, and vasoactive intestinal peptide, play a part in psoriasis.^2,10 Specifically, NGF prevents apoptosis of keratinocytes¹¹ and is found in higher levels in psoriatic skin compared to controls.¹² Calcitonin gene-related peptide has been shown to stimulate keratinocyte proliferation¹³ and has been found at increased levels in psoriatic skin.¹⁴ Vasoactive intestinal peptide-positive nerve fibers in the epidermis and dermis are found in higher quantities in psoriatic plaques compared to nonlesional and normal skin.⁸

Neuropeptides also might play a role in the itching and Köbner phenomenon that accompany psoriasis. Increased levels of NGF in nonlesional skin of patients with psoriasis is thought to contribute to the development of psoriatic plaques following trauma by inducing an inflammatory response that upregulates other neuropeptides, such as SP and calcitonin gene-related peptide. These neuropeptides induce keratinocyte proliferation, which further increases NGF expression, thus creating a cycle of inflammation and formation of psoriatic lesions.⁶ Moreover, there is a notable correlation between pruritus severity and density of NGF-immunoreactive keratinocytes, high-affinity NGF receptors, protein gene product 9.5–immunoreactive intraepidermal fibers, and immunoreactive vessels for E-selectin.¹⁵

Spontaneous remission of psoriasis after cerebrovascular accident was first reported in 1998.⁵ Moreover, there have been cases of protective effects from psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in limbs affected by poliomyelitis.^16,17 In cases in which patients regained neurologic function, Zhu et al¹⁰ found that recurrence of skin lesions in areas corresponding to nervous system injury also occurred. However, in cases of permanent nerve damage, psoriasis did not return,¹⁰ confirming the role of peripheral nerves in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. It is thought that peripheral nerve damage results in decreased secretion of neuropeptides³ and that central nervous system injury also can cause similar downstream effects.¹⁰

Other reasons for the patient’s remission also were considered. Although it is possible that the sudden change in the patient’s usual environment could have induced remission of psoriasis, it seems more likely that the stress of the situation would have worsened his symptoms. Medications used during the patient’s hospitalization also were considered as reasons for symptom improvement. One study using a case-control and case-crossover design found psoriasis to be associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (odds ratio, 4.0 and 2.1, respectively).¹⁸ Atorvastatin has been investigated as a potential treatment of psoriasis, though no therapeutic benefit has been proven.^19,20 Heparin has been shown in case reports to improve psoriasis symptoms but was used in addition to standard psoriasis therapies and not as monotherapy.²¹

A more thorough understanding of which neuropeptides are directly implicated in the neurologic-mediated clearance of psoriasis might contribute to better targeted therapies. For example, infusion of peptide T, a vasoactive intestinal peptide analogue, was shown to have some effect in clearing the skin in 14 psoriasis patients.²² Although this finding has not been replicated, it demonstrates the potential utility of therapies targeted toward the neurologic aspects of psoriasis. More research is needed to evaluate the potential of targeting other neuropeptides for treatment of psoriatic plaques.

The etiology of psoriasis is multifactorial, and it is attributed to both genetic and environmental components.¹ One of the lesser-studied aspects of psoriasis pathogenesis is the involvement of the nervous system. It is thought that the pathogenesis involves inflammation of the cutaneous nerves,² and cutaneous denervation has been shown to improve acanthosis and IL-23 expression in mice with psoriasiform skin.³ There also have been reports of psoriasis remission following peripheral and central nervous system injury from surgical nerve resection⁴ as well as cerebrovascular accident.⁵ We present a case of total psoriasis clearance following ischemic stroke.

Case Report

A 52-year-old man with psoriasis presented to the dermatology clinic for follow-up. The patient had been using topical clobetasol and apremilast with limited success but had not previously tried biologics. On physical examination he was noted to have erythematous, scaly, indurated papules and plaques on the chest, abdomen, back, arms, and legs, consistent with psoriasis. Affected body surface area was approximately 10%. Ustekinumab was prescribed, but the patient did not pick it up from the pharmacy.

Approximately 1 month later, the patient presented to the emergency department with left-sided weakness and numbness. He was hospitalized for treatment of stroke. During hospitalization, the patient was started on lisinopril, aspirin, and atorvastatin. He also was given subcutaneous enoxaparin with plans to initiate warfarin as an outpatient. His psoriasis was not treated with topical or systemic medications during the course of his admission. He was discharged to a skilled nursing facility after 3 days.

Three months following discharge, the patient returned to the dermatology clinic for follow-up. After his stroke, he reported that his psoriasis had cleared and had not returned. On physical examination his skin was clear of psoriatic lesions.

Comment

The nervous system is thought to play an important role in the pathophysiology of psoriasis. Evidence for this involvement includes the exacerbation of psoriasis with stress and the often symmetric distribution of psoriatic lesions.⁶

Moreover, numerous neuropeptides have been identified in the pathophysiology of psoriasis. Farber et al⁷ first proposed that release of substance P (SP) from cutaneous sensory nerve fibers causes a local neurogenic response that triggers psoriasis in predisposed individuals. The role of SP in psoriasis is unclear, as there have been reports of both higher⁸ and lower⁹ levels in involved and noninvolved skin of psoriatic patients compared to skin in healthy individuals. It has been suggested that numerous other neuropeptides, including nerve growth factor (NGF), calcitonin gene-related peptide, and vasoactive intestinal peptide, play a part in psoriasis.^2,10 Specifically, NGF prevents apoptosis of keratinocytes¹¹ and is found in higher levels in psoriatic skin compared to controls.¹² Calcitonin gene-related peptide has been shown to stimulate keratinocyte proliferation¹³ and has been found at increased levels in psoriatic skin.¹⁴ Vasoactive intestinal peptide-positive nerve fibers in the epidermis and dermis are found in higher quantities in psoriatic plaques compared to nonlesional and normal skin.⁸

Neuropeptides also might play a role in the itching and Köbner phenomenon that accompany psoriasis. Increased levels of NGF in nonlesional skin of patients with psoriasis is thought to contribute to the development of psoriatic plaques following trauma by inducing an inflammatory response that upregulates other neuropeptides, such as SP and calcitonin gene-related peptide. These neuropeptides induce keratinocyte proliferation, which further increases NGF expression, thus creating a cycle of inflammation and formation of psoriatic lesions.⁶ Moreover, there is a notable correlation between pruritus severity and density of NGF-immunoreactive keratinocytes, high-affinity NGF receptors, protein gene product 9.5–immunoreactive intraepidermal fibers, and immunoreactive vessels for E-selectin.¹⁵

Spontaneous remission of psoriasis after cerebrovascular accident was first reported in 1998.⁵ Moreover, there have been cases of protective effects from psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in limbs affected by poliomyelitis.^16,17 In cases in which patients regained neurologic function, Zhu et al¹⁰ found that recurrence of skin lesions in areas corresponding to nervous system injury also occurred. However, in cases of permanent nerve damage, psoriasis did not return,¹⁰ confirming the role of peripheral nerves in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. It is thought that peripheral nerve damage results in decreased secretion of neuropeptides³ and that central nervous system injury also can cause similar downstream effects.¹⁰

Other reasons for the patient’s remission also were considered. Although it is possible that the sudden change in the patient’s usual environment could have induced remission of psoriasis, it seems more likely that the stress of the situation would have worsened his symptoms. Medications used during the patient’s hospitalization also were considered as reasons for symptom improvement. One study using a case-control and case-crossover design found psoriasis to be associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (odds ratio, 4.0 and 2.1, respectively).¹⁸ Atorvastatin has been investigated as a potential treatment of psoriasis, though no therapeutic benefit has been proven.^19,20 Heparin has been shown in case reports to improve psoriasis symptoms but was used in addition to standard psoriasis therapies and not as monotherapy.²¹

A more thorough understanding of which neuropeptides are directly implicated in the neurologic-mediated clearance of psoriasis might contribute to better targeted therapies. For example, infusion of peptide T, a vasoactive intestinal peptide analogue, was shown to have some effect in clearing the skin in 14 psoriasis patients.²² Although this finding has not been replicated, it demonstrates the potential utility of therapies targeted toward the neurologic aspects of psoriasis. More research is needed to evaluate the potential of targeting other neuropeptides for treatment of psoriatic plaques.

The etiology of psoriasis is multifactorial, and it is attributed to both genetic and environmental components.¹ One of the lesser-studied aspects of psoriasis pathogenesis is the involvement of the nervous system. It is thought that the pathogenesis involves inflammation of the cutaneous nerves,² and cutaneous denervation has been shown to improve acanthosis and IL-23 expression in mice with psoriasiform skin.³ There also have been reports of psoriasis remission following peripheral and central nervous system injury from surgical nerve resection⁴ as well as cerebrovascular accident.⁵ We present a case of total psoriasis clearance following ischemic stroke.

Case Report

A 52-year-old man with psoriasis presented to the dermatology clinic for follow-up. The patient had been using topical clobetasol and apremilast with limited success but had not previously tried biologics. On physical examination he was noted to have erythematous, scaly, indurated papules and plaques on the chest, abdomen, back, arms, and legs, consistent with psoriasis. Affected body surface area was approximately 10%. Ustekinumab was prescribed, but the patient did not pick it up from the pharmacy.

Approximately 1 month later, the patient presented to the emergency department with left-sided weakness and numbness. He was hospitalized for treatment of stroke. During hospitalization, the patient was started on lisinopril, aspirin, and atorvastatin. He also was given subcutaneous enoxaparin with plans to initiate warfarin as an outpatient. His psoriasis was not treated with topical or systemic medications during the course of his admission. He was discharged to a skilled nursing facility after 3 days.

Three months following discharge, the patient returned to the dermatology clinic for follow-up. After his stroke, he reported that his psoriasis had cleared and had not returned. On physical examination his skin was clear of psoriatic lesions.

Comment

The nervous system is thought to play an important role in the pathophysiology of psoriasis. Evidence for this involvement includes the exacerbation of psoriasis with stress and the often symmetric distribution of psoriatic lesions.⁶

Moreover, numerous neuropeptides have been identified in the pathophysiology of psoriasis. Farber et al⁷ first proposed that release of substance P (SP) from cutaneous sensory nerve fibers causes a local neurogenic response that triggers psoriasis in predisposed individuals. The role of SP in psoriasis is unclear, as there have been reports of both higher⁸ and lower⁹ levels in involved and noninvolved skin of psoriatic patients compared to skin in healthy individuals. It has been suggested that numerous other neuropeptides, including nerve growth factor (NGF), calcitonin gene-related peptide, and vasoactive intestinal peptide, play a part in psoriasis.^2,10 Specifically, NGF prevents apoptosis of keratinocytes¹¹ and is found in higher levels in psoriatic skin compared to controls.¹² Calcitonin gene-related peptide has been shown to stimulate keratinocyte proliferation¹³ and has been found at increased levels in psoriatic skin.¹⁴ Vasoactive intestinal peptide-positive nerve fibers in the epidermis and dermis are found in higher quantities in psoriatic plaques compared to nonlesional and normal skin.⁸

Neuropeptides also might play a role in the itching and Köbner phenomenon that accompany psoriasis. Increased levels of NGF in nonlesional skin of patients with psoriasis is thought to contribute to the development of psoriatic plaques following trauma by inducing an inflammatory response that upregulates other neuropeptides, such as SP and calcitonin gene-related peptide. These neuropeptides induce keratinocyte proliferation, which further increases NGF expression, thus creating a cycle of inflammation and formation of psoriatic lesions.⁶ Moreover, there is a notable correlation between pruritus severity and density of NGF-immunoreactive keratinocytes, high-affinity NGF receptors, protein gene product 9.5–immunoreactive intraepidermal fibers, and immunoreactive vessels for E-selectin.¹⁵

Spontaneous remission of psoriasis after cerebrovascular accident was first reported in 1998.⁵ Moreover, there have been cases of protective effects from psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in limbs affected by poliomyelitis.^16,17 In cases in which patients regained neurologic function, Zhu et al¹⁰ found that recurrence of skin lesions in areas corresponding to nervous system injury also occurred. However, in cases of permanent nerve damage, psoriasis did not return,¹⁰ confirming the role of peripheral nerves in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. It is thought that peripheral nerve damage results in decreased secretion of neuropeptides³ and that central nervous system injury also can cause similar downstream effects.¹⁰

Other reasons for the patient’s remission also were considered. Although it is possible that the sudden change in the patient’s usual environment could have induced remission of psoriasis, it seems more likely that the stress of the situation would have worsened his symptoms. Medications used during the patient’s hospitalization also were considered as reasons for symptom improvement. One study using a case-control and case-crossover design found psoriasis to be associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (odds ratio, 4.0 and 2.1, respectively).¹⁸ Atorvastatin has been investigated as a potential treatment of psoriasis, though no therapeutic benefit has been proven.^19,20 Heparin has been shown in case reports to improve psoriasis symptoms but was used in addition to standard psoriasis therapies and not as monotherapy.²¹

A more thorough understanding of which neuropeptides are directly implicated in the neurologic-mediated clearance of psoriasis might contribute to better targeted therapies. For example, infusion of peptide T, a vasoactive intestinal peptide analogue, was shown to have some effect in clearing the skin in 14 psoriasis patients.²² Although this finding has not been replicated, it demonstrates the potential utility of therapies targeted toward the neurologic aspects of psoriasis. More research is needed to evaluate the potential of targeting other neuropeptides for treatment of psoriatic plaques.

Lung cancer is the most frequent cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.¹ The most prevalent type of lung cancer is non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which comprises about 85% of lung cancer cases.² As there are no cost-effective approaches to screening for lung cancer, most lung cancers are identified at an advanced stage (stage IIIB or IV).

New approaches to managing advanced lung cancer have emerged in recent years, including drugs designed to target specific genetic mutations in some tumors.³ The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends erlotinib, a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutation.⁴ Crizotinib is recommended to treat cancers that test positive for the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutation.⁴ Utilization of targeting agents has been found to extend the survival times for patients with the specified mutations.⁵ Both erlotinib and crizotinib are available at the VHA.

Previous research showed that VHA providers expressed overall favorable attitudes about genomic medicine.⁶ Providers perceived genomic medicine to have an important and possibly transformative role in medicine. Barriers to utilization of genomic medicine involved concerns about coordination of care, changes in workload, and increased length of patient visits. In addition to these system-level barriers, many providers had concerns about the proficiency of VHA-based practitioners to appropriately use genomic medicine.

Previous research has evaluated utilization of genomic testing and genomic-based targeted therapy (GBTT) in VA and community settings.^5-8 It is unclear whether VHA-based providers are following clinical guidelines regarding genomic testing and utilization of GBTT.⁴ The authors set out to identify factors that impede and encourage guideline-consistent care in the management of NSCLC at the VHA. The authors specifically sought information about oncologists’ perceptions and experiences with EGFR and ALK mutation testing in patients with advanced NSCLC, as well as use of erlotinib and crizotinib in treating such patients.

Methods

This study was approved by the institutional review boards at Michael E. DeBakey VAMC in Houston, Texas and Baylor College of Medicine. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with VHA oncologists to examine their reported barriers and facilitators to mutation testing and prescribing of genomic-based treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC.

The sample of participants was recruited from a list of VHA medical oncologists, compiled by the study project coordinator. Investigators stratified the list by American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation status (yes/no) and used a stratified purposive sampling technique to recruit participants from CoC-accredited facilities and nonaccredited facilities. Recruitment and data collection occurred between March 2015 and February 2016. Oncologists were considered for inclusion if they (1) were specialists in oncology; (2) practiced at the VHA during the time of recruitment; and (3) had experience treating lung cancer at a VHA facility. During recruitment, potential participants were told that the investigators were interested in learning about oncologists’ experiences and decisions about using GBTT to treat advanced lung cancer in the VHA. Participants were scheduled for telephone-based interviews, and verbal consent was obtained prior to all interviews. Interviews ranged from 19 to 90 minutes (average, 40 min).

Recruitment was stopped at the point of thematic saturation, defined a priori as the point when 2 independent coders agreed that 3 consecutive transcripts for a given interview category (see below) rendered no new thematic concepts.^9,10 Consistent with the theoretical framework developed by Cabana and colleagues, interviews were designed to elicit information about oncologists’ knowledge, attitudes, intent to use GBTT, and perceived facilitators and barriers to using GBTT in the VHA.¹¹ Additional findings are presented elsewhere.¹² The interview guide was pilot tested and revised prior to initiating data collection. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for content.

Analysis

Data were analyzed using framework analysis methodology, which allows for the inclusion of existing concepts as well as emergent themes within an established theoretical framework.¹³ Two independent coders with expertise in framework analysis independently created codes and indexed the data using Atlas.ti 6.2 (Scientific Software Development, Berlin, Germany). Disagreements about coding decisions were resolved through group consensus. Coding centered on 2 themes:

• Barriers and facilitators to mutation testing. This includes system or facility factors and testing weaknesses that act as barriers to ordering mutation testing, system or facility factors that facilitate ordering mutation testing, and oncologists’ suggestions for ways to encourage more testing in the VHA.
• Barriers and facilitators to prescribing GBTT. This includes system or facility factors that act as barriers to prescribing GBTT, system or facility factors that facilitate prescribing GBTT, and oncologists’ suggestions for ways to encourage more prescribing of GBTT in the VHA.

Thirty medical oncologists were interviewed. Participant demographics are presented in the Table.

Barriers to testing

The 2 most commonly cited barriers to ordering mutation testing can be considered weaknesses in the testing process: lack of tissue and wait time for results. Almost all providers identified lack of tissue as a barrier to ordering a mutation test.

Another frequently cited testing weakness involved the wait time for results. Because the mutation analysis is not conducted in the VHA facility, providers often must wait 2 to 4 weeks to receive results. This can present a problem because some providers do not want to wait for the results before recommending a course of treatment.

Several providers cited system and facility factors as barriers to mutation testing. The most common of these involves the ordering process. Oncology providers often remarked that ordering the mutation test is cumbersome or inconvenient because there is no ordering mechanism in the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). Many different approaches for ordering a mutation test exist, including e-mailing the pathology department, calling to place the order, or requesting the test in person. As providers can order many, if not most, other tests via CPRS, it is clear that this presents an inconvenient exception.

Budgetary constraints were another frequently cited system or facility-level barrier. Providers sometimes were unable to access the test due to the cost. Several providers informed the interviewers that the cost of the test is deducted from the pathology department’s budget, and this could present a major constraint to testing. A less commonly cited system or facility level barrier involves the inability to biopsy at the VHA. This was mentioned by only 2 providers who, due to lack of equipment or lack of personnel, were unable to acquire additional tissue samples at their facilities.

Finally, several providers noted that in some cases patients did not wish to undergo a biopsy. Thus, patient preference can act as a barrier to mutation testing. Some patients wish to forgo treatment, which eliminates the need for a mutation test. Other patients believe that due to their smoking history, they are unlikely to have an ALK or EGFR mutation and instead immediately opt for chemotherapy. Only a small minority of participants identified no barriers to mutation testing.

Facilitators for Testing

Many providers complimented the availability of the mutation test. Interestingly, while some providers mentioned that lack of CPRS ordering was a barrier to testing, several also listed access to a CPRS order as a facilitator. These providers commented that ordering a test was streamlined and easy, given the mechanism in CPRS. Some VHA facilities offer CPRS order capabilities, and others do not. Other oncologists commented more generally on the cooperativeness of the pathology department in ordering mutation tests. It seems that facilities may use different ordering procedures, but in most of these facilities, a high degree of cooperation exists between departments to send out for tests that are requested.

Providers offered many ideas for ways to improve mutation testing or to facilitate the testing. By far, the most commonly cited way to improve the testing process was to make mutation testing reflexive for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Some acknowledged that to achieve this would require a change to the budgeting process such that the test would not drain the pathology department’s budget. Implementing reflexive testing of patients, as recommended by guidelines, would understandably address several of the barriers that were identified in this study. Other providers recommended standardizing the ordering procedure and location of results. Specifically, providers recommended creating a button in CPRS for ordering and always reporting the results in the same place in CPRS.

Barriers to GBTT Prescribing

The clear majority of providers identified no barriers to prescribing GBTTs. A few mentioned that they were required to submit a nonformulary consult. A representative quote described this as “more out of a formality, and the pharmacist basically is there with me and he approves it on the spot and provides the prescription on the day, right when I’m seeing the patient.” Only a very small minority of providers identified medication cost as a barrier, but even those respondents did not indicate that cost prevented them from offering GBTTs to their patients. Rather, cost consciousness simply made them more mindful and judicious when making decisions about prescribing GBTTs.

Facilitators to GBTT Prescribing

Several providers listed availability of the costly medication in the VHA as a facilitator to prescribing. Veterans can obtain GBTTs with little to no insurance cost or copayment, which is not always the case outside the VHA.

One recommendation for further facilitating prescribing of GBTTs involved eliminating the preauthorization requirement, particularly in first-line use for patients testing positive for ALK or EGFR mutations. Although the preauthorization was not seen as a significant barrier, removal of this formality could make prescribing easier.

Discussion

Although in some cases, testing weaknesses (lack of tissue, wait time to receive results) can interrupt a treatment trajectory, many of the barriers identified in this study are modifiable. Overwhelmingly, oncologists recommended making mutation testing reflexive for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Implementing reflexive testing of patients, as recommended by guidelines, would understandably address issues related to variable utilization of genomic testing in VHA.¹² Additionally, in response to system and facility barriers to mutation testing, other providers recommended standardizing the ordering procedure and location of results. Utilization of GBTT can be facilitated by eliminating the preauthorization requirement, particularly in first-line use for patients with positive mutations. Although the preauthorization was not seen as a significant barrier, removal of this formality could make prescribing easier.

This study extends previous research that identified underuse of genomic testing in community-based practices. The authors sought to interview a broad sample of providers from various facilities (small, large, CoC accredited, nonaccredited) to understand the range of conditions faced by VA providers. Some providers face more barriers than do others, whereas some face few or no barriers. This wide range of experiences can help to better understand the factors that facilitate guideline-adherent care.

Limitations

The authors recognize that availability of resources and testing and prescribing practices are constantly evolving and perhaps have improved since the data were collected. Thus, the age of the study data might be a limitation to the study. Like most qualitative studies, these findings are limited in their generalizability beyond the study population. Additionally, the authors were limited to recruiting oncologists with reliable contact information listed in the VHA directory. Although this could have introduced some degree of sampling bias, the authors are confident that the sample sufficiently represents the population of VHA-based medical oncologists who treat lung cancer. Despite these limitations, these findings provide novel perspectives on barriers and facilitators to genomic testing GBTT prescribing in the VHA. The authors identify modifiable barriers to testing and prescribing that can be addressed to improve and standardize care of advanced lung cancer in the VHA.

Conclusion

Efforts should be made to address modifiable barriers to mutation testing and guideline-consistent prescribing of GBTT in the VA setting. Implementation of specific practices like reflexive testing for all metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, standardization of the mutation test ordering procedure, standardization of results reporting, and elimination of the preauthorization to prescribe GBTT could impact the utilization of GBTT in VHA.

Click here to read the digital edition.

Lung cancer is the most frequent cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.¹ The most prevalent type of lung cancer is non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which comprises about 85% of lung cancer cases.² As there are no cost-effective approaches to screening for lung cancer, most lung cancers are identified at an advanced stage (stage IIIB or IV).

New approaches to managing advanced lung cancer have emerged in recent years, including drugs designed to target specific genetic mutations in some tumors.³ The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends erlotinib, a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutation.⁴ Crizotinib is recommended to treat cancers that test positive for the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutation.⁴ Utilization of targeting agents has been found to extend the survival times for patients with the specified mutations.⁵ Both erlotinib and crizotinib are available at the VHA.

Previous research showed that VHA providers expressed overall favorable attitudes about genomic medicine.⁶ Providers perceived genomic medicine to have an important and possibly transformative role in medicine. Barriers to utilization of genomic medicine involved concerns about coordination of care, changes in workload, and increased length of patient visits. In addition to these system-level barriers, many providers had concerns about the proficiency of VHA-based practitioners to appropriately use genomic medicine.

Previous research has evaluated utilization of genomic testing and genomic-based targeted therapy (GBTT) in VA and community settings.^5-8 It is unclear whether VHA-based providers are following clinical guidelines regarding genomic testing and utilization of GBTT.⁴ The authors set out to identify factors that impede and encourage guideline-consistent care in the management of NSCLC at the VHA. The authors specifically sought information about oncologists’ perceptions and experiences with EGFR and ALK mutation testing in patients with advanced NSCLC, as well as use of erlotinib and crizotinib in treating such patients.

Methods

This study was approved by the institutional review boards at Michael E. DeBakey VAMC in Houston, Texas and Baylor College of Medicine. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with VHA oncologists to examine their reported barriers and facilitators to mutation testing and prescribing of genomic-based treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC.

The sample of participants was recruited from a list of VHA medical oncologists, compiled by the study project coordinator. Investigators stratified the list by American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation status (yes/no) and used a stratified purposive sampling technique to recruit participants from CoC-accredited facilities and nonaccredited facilities. Recruitment and data collection occurred between March 2015 and February 2016. Oncologists were considered for inclusion if they (1) were specialists in oncology; (2) practiced at the VHA during the time of recruitment; and (3) had experience treating lung cancer at a VHA facility. During recruitment, potential participants were told that the investigators were interested in learning about oncologists’ experiences and decisions about using GBTT to treat advanced lung cancer in the VHA. Participants were scheduled for telephone-based interviews, and verbal consent was obtained prior to all interviews. Interviews ranged from 19 to 90 minutes (average, 40 min).

Recruitment was stopped at the point of thematic saturation, defined a priori as the point when 2 independent coders agreed that 3 consecutive transcripts for a given interview category (see below) rendered no new thematic concepts.^9,10 Consistent with the theoretical framework developed by Cabana and colleagues, interviews were designed to elicit information about oncologists’ knowledge, attitudes, intent to use GBTT, and perceived facilitators and barriers to using GBTT in the VHA.¹¹ Additional findings are presented elsewhere.¹² The interview guide was pilot tested and revised prior to initiating data collection. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for content.

Analysis

Data were analyzed using framework analysis methodology, which allows for the inclusion of existing concepts as well as emergent themes within an established theoretical framework.¹³ Two independent coders with expertise in framework analysis independently created codes and indexed the data using Atlas.ti 6.2 (Scientific Software Development, Berlin, Germany). Disagreements about coding decisions were resolved through group consensus. Coding centered on 2 themes:

• Barriers and facilitators to mutation testing. This includes system or facility factors and testing weaknesses that act as barriers to ordering mutation testing, system or facility factors that facilitate ordering mutation testing, and oncologists’ suggestions for ways to encourage more testing in the VHA.
• Barriers and facilitators to prescribing GBTT. This includes system or facility factors that act as barriers to prescribing GBTT, system or facility factors that facilitate prescribing GBTT, and oncologists’ suggestions for ways to encourage more prescribing of GBTT in the VHA.

Thirty medical oncologists were interviewed. Participant demographics are presented in the Table.

Barriers to testing

The 2 most commonly cited barriers to ordering mutation testing can be considered weaknesses in the testing process: lack of tissue and wait time for results. Almost all providers identified lack of tissue as a barrier to ordering a mutation test.

Another frequently cited testing weakness involved the wait time for results. Because the mutation analysis is not conducted in the VHA facility, providers often must wait 2 to 4 weeks to receive results. This can present a problem because some providers do not want to wait for the results before recommending a course of treatment.

Several providers cited system and facility factors as barriers to mutation testing. The most common of these involves the ordering process. Oncology providers often remarked that ordering the mutation test is cumbersome or inconvenient because there is no ordering mechanism in the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). Many different approaches for ordering a mutation test exist, including e-mailing the pathology department, calling to place the order, or requesting the test in person. As providers can order many, if not most, other tests via CPRS, it is clear that this presents an inconvenient exception.

Budgetary constraints were another frequently cited system or facility-level barrier. Providers sometimes were unable to access the test due to the cost. Several providers informed the interviewers that the cost of the test is deducted from the pathology department’s budget, and this could present a major constraint to testing. A less commonly cited system or facility level barrier involves the inability to biopsy at the VHA. This was mentioned by only 2 providers who, due to lack of equipment or lack of personnel, were unable to acquire additional tissue samples at their facilities.

Finally, several providers noted that in some cases patients did not wish to undergo a biopsy. Thus, patient preference can act as a barrier to mutation testing. Some patients wish to forgo treatment, which eliminates the need for a mutation test. Other patients believe that due to their smoking history, they are unlikely to have an ALK or EGFR mutation and instead immediately opt for chemotherapy. Only a small minority of participants identified no barriers to mutation testing.

Facilitators for Testing

Many providers complimented the availability of the mutation test. Interestingly, while some providers mentioned that lack of CPRS ordering was a barrier to testing, several also listed access to a CPRS order as a facilitator. These providers commented that ordering a test was streamlined and easy, given the mechanism in CPRS. Some VHA facilities offer CPRS order capabilities, and others do not. Other oncologists commented more generally on the cooperativeness of the pathology department in ordering mutation tests. It seems that facilities may use different ordering procedures, but in most of these facilities, a high degree of cooperation exists between departments to send out for tests that are requested.

Providers offered many ideas for ways to improve mutation testing or to facilitate the testing. By far, the most commonly cited way to improve the testing process was to make mutation testing reflexive for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Some acknowledged that to achieve this would require a change to the budgeting process such that the test would not drain the pathology department’s budget. Implementing reflexive testing of patients, as recommended by guidelines, would understandably address several of the barriers that were identified in this study. Other providers recommended standardizing the ordering procedure and location of results. Specifically, providers recommended creating a button in CPRS for ordering and always reporting the results in the same place in CPRS.

Barriers to GBTT Prescribing

The clear majority of providers identified no barriers to prescribing GBTTs. A few mentioned that they were required to submit a nonformulary consult. A representative quote described this as “more out of a formality, and the pharmacist basically is there with me and he approves it on the spot and provides the prescription on the day, right when I’m seeing the patient.” Only a very small minority of providers identified medication cost as a barrier, but even those respondents did not indicate that cost prevented them from offering GBTTs to their patients. Rather, cost consciousness simply made them more mindful and judicious when making decisions about prescribing GBTTs.

Facilitators to GBTT Prescribing

Several providers listed availability of the costly medication in the VHA as a facilitator to prescribing. Veterans can obtain GBTTs with little to no insurance cost or copayment, which is not always the case outside the VHA.

One recommendation for further facilitating prescribing of GBTTs involved eliminating the preauthorization requirement, particularly in first-line use for patients testing positive for ALK or EGFR mutations. Although the preauthorization was not seen as a significant barrier, removal of this formality could make prescribing easier.

Discussion

Although in some cases, testing weaknesses (lack of tissue, wait time to receive results) can interrupt a treatment trajectory, many of the barriers identified in this study are modifiable. Overwhelmingly, oncologists recommended making mutation testing reflexive for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Implementing reflexive testing of patients, as recommended by guidelines, would understandably address issues related to variable utilization of genomic testing in VHA.¹² Additionally, in response to system and facility barriers to mutation testing, other providers recommended standardizing the ordering procedure and location of results. Utilization of GBTT can be facilitated by eliminating the preauthorization requirement, particularly in first-line use for patients with positive mutations. Although the preauthorization was not seen as a significant barrier, removal of this formality could make prescribing easier.

This study extends previous research that identified underuse of genomic testing in community-based practices. The authors sought to interview a broad sample of providers from various facilities (small, large, CoC accredited, nonaccredited) to understand the range of conditions faced by VA providers. Some providers face more barriers than do others, whereas some face few or no barriers. This wide range of experiences can help to better understand the factors that facilitate guideline-adherent care.

Limitations

The authors recognize that availability of resources and testing and prescribing practices are constantly evolving and perhaps have improved since the data were collected. Thus, the age of the study data might be a limitation to the study. Like most qualitative studies, these findings are limited in their generalizability beyond the study population. Additionally, the authors were limited to recruiting oncologists with reliable contact information listed in the VHA directory. Although this could have introduced some degree of sampling bias, the authors are confident that the sample sufficiently represents the population of VHA-based medical oncologists who treat lung cancer. Despite these limitations, these findings provide novel perspectives on barriers and facilitators to genomic testing GBTT prescribing in the VHA. The authors identify modifiable barriers to testing and prescribing that can be addressed to improve and standardize care of advanced lung cancer in the VHA.

Conclusion

Efforts should be made to address modifiable barriers to mutation testing and guideline-consistent prescribing of GBTT in the VA setting. Implementation of specific practices like reflexive testing for all metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, standardization of the mutation test ordering procedure, standardization of results reporting, and elimination of the preauthorization to prescribe GBTT could impact the utilization of GBTT in VHA.

Click here to read the digital edition.

Lung cancer is the most frequent cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.¹ The most prevalent type of lung cancer is non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which comprises about 85% of lung cancer cases.² As there are no cost-effective approaches to screening for lung cancer, most lung cancers are identified at an advanced stage (stage IIIB or IV).

New approaches to managing advanced lung cancer have emerged in recent years, including drugs designed to target specific genetic mutations in some tumors.³ The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends erlotinib, a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutation.⁴ Crizotinib is recommended to treat cancers that test positive for the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutation.⁴ Utilization of targeting agents has been found to extend the survival times for patients with the specified mutations.⁵ Both erlotinib and crizotinib are available at the VHA.

Previous research showed that VHA providers expressed overall favorable attitudes about genomic medicine.⁶ Providers perceived genomic medicine to have an important and possibly transformative role in medicine. Barriers to utilization of genomic medicine involved concerns about coordination of care, changes in workload, and increased length of patient visits. In addition to these system-level barriers, many providers had concerns about the proficiency of VHA-based practitioners to appropriately use genomic medicine.

Previous research has evaluated utilization of genomic testing and genomic-based targeted therapy (GBTT) in VA and community settings.^5-8 It is unclear whether VHA-based providers are following clinical guidelines regarding genomic testing and utilization of GBTT.⁴ The authors set out to identify factors that impede and encourage guideline-consistent care in the management of NSCLC at the VHA. The authors specifically sought information about oncologists’ perceptions and experiences with EGFR and ALK mutation testing in patients with advanced NSCLC, as well as use of erlotinib and crizotinib in treating such patients.

Methods

This study was approved by the institutional review boards at Michael E. DeBakey VAMC in Houston, Texas and Baylor College of Medicine. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with VHA oncologists to examine their reported barriers and facilitators to mutation testing and prescribing of genomic-based treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC.

The sample of participants was recruited from a list of VHA medical oncologists, compiled by the study project coordinator. Investigators stratified the list by American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation status (yes/no) and used a stratified purposive sampling technique to recruit participants from CoC-accredited facilities and nonaccredited facilities. Recruitment and data collection occurred between March 2015 and February 2016. Oncologists were considered for inclusion if they (1) were specialists in oncology; (2) practiced at the VHA during the time of recruitment; and (3) had experience treating lung cancer at a VHA facility. During recruitment, potential participants were told that the investigators were interested in learning about oncologists’ experiences and decisions about using GBTT to treat advanced lung cancer in the VHA. Participants were scheduled for telephone-based interviews, and verbal consent was obtained prior to all interviews. Interviews ranged from 19 to 90 minutes (average, 40 min).

Recruitment was stopped at the point of thematic saturation, defined a priori as the point when 2 independent coders agreed that 3 consecutive transcripts for a given interview category (see below) rendered no new thematic concepts.^9,10 Consistent with the theoretical framework developed by Cabana and colleagues, interviews were designed to elicit information about oncologists’ knowledge, attitudes, intent to use GBTT, and perceived facilitators and barriers to using GBTT in the VHA.¹¹ Additional findings are presented elsewhere.¹² The interview guide was pilot tested and revised prior to initiating data collection. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for content.

Analysis

Data were analyzed using framework analysis methodology, which allows for the inclusion of existing concepts as well as emergent themes within an established theoretical framework.¹³ Two independent coders with expertise in framework analysis independently created codes and indexed the data using Atlas.ti 6.2 (Scientific Software Development, Berlin, Germany). Disagreements about coding decisions were resolved through group consensus. Coding centered on 2 themes:

• Barriers and facilitators to mutation testing. This includes system or facility factors and testing weaknesses that act as barriers to ordering mutation testing, system or facility factors that facilitate ordering mutation testing, and oncologists’ suggestions for ways to encourage more testing in the VHA.
• Barriers and facilitators to prescribing GBTT. This includes system or facility factors that act as barriers to prescribing GBTT, system or facility factors that facilitate prescribing GBTT, and oncologists’ suggestions for ways to encourage more prescribing of GBTT in the VHA.

Thirty medical oncologists were interviewed. Participant demographics are presented in the Table.

Barriers to testing

The 2 most commonly cited barriers to ordering mutation testing can be considered weaknesses in the testing process: lack of tissue and wait time for results. Almost all providers identified lack of tissue as a barrier to ordering a mutation test.

Another frequently cited testing weakness involved the wait time for results. Because the mutation analysis is not conducted in the VHA facility, providers often must wait 2 to 4 weeks to receive results. This can present a problem because some providers do not want to wait for the results before recommending a course of treatment.

Several providers cited system and facility factors as barriers to mutation testing. The most common of these involves the ordering process. Oncology providers often remarked that ordering the mutation test is cumbersome or inconvenient because there is no ordering mechanism in the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). Many different approaches for ordering a mutation test exist, including e-mailing the pathology department, calling to place the order, or requesting the test in person. As providers can order many, if not most, other tests via CPRS, it is clear that this presents an inconvenient exception.

Budgetary constraints were another frequently cited system or facility-level barrier. Providers sometimes were unable to access the test due to the cost. Several providers informed the interviewers that the cost of the test is deducted from the pathology department’s budget, and this could present a major constraint to testing. A less commonly cited system or facility level barrier involves the inability to biopsy at the VHA. This was mentioned by only 2 providers who, due to lack of equipment or lack of personnel, were unable to acquire additional tissue samples at their facilities.

Finally, several providers noted that in some cases patients did not wish to undergo a biopsy. Thus, patient preference can act as a barrier to mutation testing. Some patients wish to forgo treatment, which eliminates the need for a mutation test. Other patients believe that due to their smoking history, they are unlikely to have an ALK or EGFR mutation and instead immediately opt for chemotherapy. Only a small minority of participants identified no barriers to mutation testing.

Facilitators for Testing

Many providers complimented the availability of the mutation test. Interestingly, while some providers mentioned that lack of CPRS ordering was a barrier to testing, several also listed access to a CPRS order as a facilitator. These providers commented that ordering a test was streamlined and easy, given the mechanism in CPRS. Some VHA facilities offer CPRS order capabilities, and others do not. Other oncologists commented more generally on the cooperativeness of the pathology department in ordering mutation tests. It seems that facilities may use different ordering procedures, but in most of these facilities, a high degree of cooperation exists between departments to send out for tests that are requested.

Providers offered many ideas for ways to improve mutation testing or to facilitate the testing. By far, the most commonly cited way to improve the testing process was to make mutation testing reflexive for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Some acknowledged that to achieve this would require a change to the budgeting process such that the test would not drain the pathology department’s budget. Implementing reflexive testing of patients, as recommended by guidelines, would understandably address several of the barriers that were identified in this study. Other providers recommended standardizing the ordering procedure and location of results. Specifically, providers recommended creating a button in CPRS for ordering and always reporting the results in the same place in CPRS.

Barriers to GBTT Prescribing

The clear majority of providers identified no barriers to prescribing GBTTs. A few mentioned that they were required to submit a nonformulary consult. A representative quote described this as “more out of a formality, and the pharmacist basically is there with me and he approves it on the spot and provides the prescription on the day, right when I’m seeing the patient.” Only a very small minority of providers identified medication cost as a barrier, but even those respondents did not indicate that cost prevented them from offering GBTTs to their patients. Rather, cost consciousness simply made them more mindful and judicious when making decisions about prescribing GBTTs.

Facilitators to GBTT Prescribing

Several providers listed availability of the costly medication in the VHA as a facilitator to prescribing. Veterans can obtain GBTTs with little to no insurance cost or copayment, which is not always the case outside the VHA.

One recommendation for further facilitating prescribing of GBTTs involved eliminating the preauthorization requirement, particularly in first-line use for patients testing positive for ALK or EGFR mutations. Although the preauthorization was not seen as a significant barrier, removal of this formality could make prescribing easier.

Discussion

Although in some cases, testing weaknesses (lack of tissue, wait time to receive results) can interrupt a treatment trajectory, many of the barriers identified in this study are modifiable. Overwhelmingly, oncologists recommended making mutation testing reflexive for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Implementing reflexive testing of patients, as recommended by guidelines, would understandably address issues related to variable utilization of genomic testing in VHA.¹² Additionally, in response to system and facility barriers to mutation testing, other providers recommended standardizing the ordering procedure and location of results. Utilization of GBTT can be facilitated by eliminating the preauthorization requirement, particularly in first-line use for patients with positive mutations. Although the preauthorization was not seen as a significant barrier, removal of this formality could make prescribing easier.

This study extends previous research that identified underuse of genomic testing in community-based practices. The authors sought to interview a broad sample of providers from various facilities (small, large, CoC accredited, nonaccredited) to understand the range of conditions faced by VA providers. Some providers face more barriers than do others, whereas some face few or no barriers. This wide range of experiences can help to better understand the factors that facilitate guideline-adherent care.

Limitations

The authors recognize that availability of resources and testing and prescribing practices are constantly evolving and perhaps have improved since the data were collected. Thus, the age of the study data might be a limitation to the study. Like most qualitative studies, these findings are limited in their generalizability beyond the study population. Additionally, the authors were limited to recruiting oncologists with reliable contact information listed in the VHA directory. Although this could have introduced some degree of sampling bias, the authors are confident that the sample sufficiently represents the population of VHA-based medical oncologists who treat lung cancer. Despite these limitations, these findings provide novel perspectives on barriers and facilitators to genomic testing GBTT prescribing in the VHA. The authors identify modifiable barriers to testing and prescribing that can be addressed to improve and standardize care of advanced lung cancer in the VHA.

Conclusion

Efforts should be made to address modifiable barriers to mutation testing and guideline-consistent prescribing of GBTT in the VA setting. Implementation of specific practices like reflexive testing for all metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, standardization of the mutation test ordering procedure, standardization of results reporting, and elimination of the preauthorization to prescribe GBTT could impact the utilization of GBTT in VHA.

Click here to read the digital edition.

Dr. Joseph Berger’s article The Financial Contribution of the Multiple Sclerosis Specialist
(Neurol Clin Pract. 2017;7:246-255) is an eye-opening examination of how multiple sclerosis (MS) specialists fit into the economic framework of large academic institutions. We sat down with Dr. Berger to discuss his findings.

How would you describe the downstream revenue generated from MS specialists at large academic institutions?

The downstream revenue generated from MS is highly dependent on whether the drugs prescribed to patients are provided by the academic institution, and whether the infusions and imaging studies are done at the academic institution.

Another component is whether that institution operates under a Medicare 340B, a law that enables the institutions that are providing care to the underserved to acquire drugs at a steeply discounted price. And, as cited in the paper, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that the profit margin is 58% for all the drugs being provided under 340B. It’s important to note that that statistic accounts for all drugs, not a specific drug or a specific class of drugs. But, for the sake of argument let’s assume that it’s 50% for MS drugs.

The typical MS drug costs $60,000 a year if not more, and that means that 50% of that total goes to the contribution margin of the MS provider or the MS clinic. If there are 1000 patients for whom the specialty pharmacy within the institution is providing drugs, that means an enormous amount of money is returning to the institution as a result of the contribution by the MS practitioners.

In addition to the cost of the drugs, there’s also the cost of infusions associated with the drug that contributes substantially to the bottom line of the institution.

MS specialists tend to do more imaging studies than any other discipline. At the time of diagnosis, individuals with MS get MRIs of brain, cervical and thoracic spine, and frequently the orbits. The frequency with which these images are repeated depends on the nature of the patient’s illness, the activity of their disease, etc.

How do you make a case to administrators for more funding in MS centers?

Unfortunately, the downstream revenue does not always find its way back to the MS centers. Moreover, MS practitioners are forced to prove their value to the institution before they can receive the resources that they need.

There are only two things that administrators in medical institutions respond to. The first is need. The second is the financial impact of the activity.

Here is an example from my own personal experience. I prescribed a specific drug for a patient who did not live close to the institution. It took three months for the patient to receive the drug. This was due, in large measure, to problems with the insurance company and the outside specialty pharmacies that we were dealing with. In that course of time the patient suffered two relapses from which she never fully recovered.

I thought we could do a much better job treating our patients if our own specialty pharmacy was providing the drug. Eventually, after some negotiating with the administration, we were able to provide all those drugs through our specialty pharmacy. That change resulted in a significant increase in terms of contribution margin for the MS team, and it was a great benefit for our patients.

How does MS compare with other neurology disciplines?

If you look at the contribution margin from MS and compare it to in any other division in neurology, it exceeds all of them combined by a significant percentage.

For example, the current contribution margin in the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania exceeds that of virtually any other line within the Neuroscience Center Service, which includes neurosurgery. It is on par with, and may exceed, that of spine surgery, which in the past had always been the biggest driver of the contribution margin from the Neuroscience service line.

Often, MS specialists aren’t getting the resources needed despite the fact that their growing practice would enhance the contribution margin.

Since this has been brought to the attention of the administration at the University of Pennsylvania, there have been increased resources available for the division; we now have more nurses and nurse practitioners, and we have pharmacists within the division. All of this has made a big difference in helping to provide the best care for our patients.

How would you characterize the compensation of the MS specialist?

One of the things that I did address in the article, but only obliquely, is the compensation of the MS neurologist.

Historically, the MS neurologist was among the least compensated of all the neurology disciplines, in academics as well as in private practice. The reason for this was simple. Until the early 1990s, there were very few drugs to treat MS. It was more a matter of diagnosing people and treating the symptoms as they arose. When drugs for MS emerged, they were not particularly complex to manage.

However, as new drugs have become available, and the efficacy of these drugs increased, so did their side effect profiles. A need arose for specialists to manage the treatment of patients with MS.

I hope to address this further in a future publication, but the underlying assertion is that the compensation of the MS neurologist needs to be revisited at both academic institutions and in the community.

Final thoughts?

The article was an attempt to educate not just the MS community, but the broader neurologic community as to the value of an MS specialist to an institution.

The purpose of this article was to encourage people to think about their worth and the worth of what they do as it applies to the financial well-being of the institution with which they’re associated.

Dr. Joseph Berger’s article The Financial Contribution of the Multiple Sclerosis Specialist
(Neurol Clin Pract. 2017;7:246-255) is an eye-opening examination of how multiple sclerosis (MS) specialists fit into the economic framework of large academic institutions. We sat down with Dr. Berger to discuss his findings.

How would you describe the downstream revenue generated from MS specialists at large academic institutions?

The downstream revenue generated from MS is highly dependent on whether the drugs prescribed to patients are provided by the academic institution, and whether the infusions and imaging studies are done at the academic institution.

Another component is whether that institution operates under a Medicare 340B, a law that enables the institutions that are providing care to the underserved to acquire drugs at a steeply discounted price. And, as cited in the paper, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that the profit margin is 58% for all the drugs being provided under 340B. It’s important to note that that statistic accounts for all drugs, not a specific drug or a specific class of drugs. But, for the sake of argument let’s assume that it’s 50% for MS drugs.

The typical MS drug costs $60,000 a year if not more, and that means that 50% of that total goes to the contribution margin of the MS provider or the MS clinic. If there are 1000 patients for whom the specialty pharmacy within the institution is providing drugs, that means an enormous amount of money is returning to the institution as a result of the contribution by the MS practitioners.

In addition to the cost of the drugs, there’s also the cost of infusions associated with the drug that contributes substantially to the bottom line of the institution.

MS specialists tend to do more imaging studies than any other discipline. At the time of diagnosis, individuals with MS get MRIs of brain, cervical and thoracic spine, and frequently the orbits. The frequency with which these images are repeated depends on the nature of the patient’s illness, the activity of their disease, etc.

How do you make a case to administrators for more funding in MS centers?

Unfortunately, the downstream revenue does not always find its way back to the MS centers. Moreover, MS practitioners are forced to prove their value to the institution before they can receive the resources that they need.

There are only two things that administrators in medical institutions respond to. The first is need. The second is the financial impact of the activity.

Here is an example from my own personal experience. I prescribed a specific drug for a patient who did not live close to the institution. It took three months for the patient to receive the drug. This was due, in large measure, to problems with the insurance company and the outside specialty pharmacies that we were dealing with. In that course of time the patient suffered two relapses from which she never fully recovered.

I thought we could do a much better job treating our patients if our own specialty pharmacy was providing the drug. Eventually, after some negotiating with the administration, we were able to provide all those drugs through our specialty pharmacy. That change resulted in a significant increase in terms of contribution margin for the MS team, and it was a great benefit for our patients.

How does MS compare with other neurology disciplines?

If you look at the contribution margin from MS and compare it to in any other division in neurology, it exceeds all of them combined by a significant percentage.

For example, the current contribution margin in the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania exceeds that of virtually any other line within the Neuroscience Center Service, which includes neurosurgery. It is on par with, and may exceed, that of spine surgery, which in the past had always been the biggest driver of the contribution margin from the Neuroscience service line.

Often, MS specialists aren’t getting the resources needed despite the fact that their growing practice would enhance the contribution margin.

Since this has been brought to the attention of the administration at the University of Pennsylvania, there have been increased resources available for the division; we now have more nurses and nurse practitioners, and we have pharmacists within the division. All of this has made a big difference in helping to provide the best care for our patients.

How would you characterize the compensation of the MS specialist?

One of the things that I did address in the article, but only obliquely, is the compensation of the MS neurologist.

Historically, the MS neurologist was among the least compensated of all the neurology disciplines, in academics as well as in private practice. The reason for this was simple. Until the early 1990s, there were very few drugs to treat MS. It was more a matter of diagnosing people and treating the symptoms as they arose. When drugs for MS emerged, they were not particularly complex to manage.

However, as new drugs have become available, and the efficacy of these drugs increased, so did their side effect profiles. A need arose for specialists to manage the treatment of patients with MS.