User login
Discussing immunization with vaccine-hesitant parents requires caring, individualized approach
ORLANDO – Putting parents at ease, making vaccination the default option during discussions, appealing to their identity as a good parent, and focusing on positive word choice during discussions are the techniques two pediatricians have recommended using to get vaccine-hesitant parents to immunize their children.
“Your goal is to get parents to immunize their kids,” Katrina Saba, MD, of the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif., said during an interactive group panel at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Our goal is not to win a debate. You don’t have to correct every mistaken idea.”
“And really importantly, as we know, belief trumps science,” she added. “Their belief is so much stronger than our proof, and their belief will not be changed by evidence.”
Many parents who are vaccine- hesitant also belong to a social network that forms or reinforces their beliefs, and attacking those beliefs is the same as attacking their identity, Dr. Saba noted. “When you attack someone’s identity, you are immediately seen as not like them, and if you’re not like them, you’ve lost your strength in persuading them.”
Dr. Saba; Kenneth Hempstead, MD; and other pediatricians and educators in the Permanente Medical Group developed a framework for pediatricians and educators to talk with their patients about immunization at their center after California passed a law in 2013 that required health care professionals to discuss vaccines with patients and sign off that they had that discussion.
“We felt that, if we were going to be by law required to have that discussion, maybe we needed some new tools to have [the discussion] more effectively,” Dr. Saba said. “Because clearly, [what we were doing ] wasn’t working or there wouldn’t have been a need for that law.”
Dr. Hempstead explained the concerns of three major categories of vaccine-hesitant parents: those patients who are unsure of whether they should vaccinate, parents who wish to delay vaccination, and parents who refuse vaccination of their children.
Each parent requires a different approach for discussing the importance of vaccination based on their level of vaccine hesitancy, he said. For parents who are unsure, they may require general information about the safety and importance of vaccines.
Parents who delay immunization may have less trust in vaccines, have done research in their own social networks, and may present alternatives to a standard immunization schedule or want to omit certain vaccines from their child’s immunization schedule, he noted. Using the analogy of a car seat is one approach to identify the importance of vaccination to these parents: “Waiting to give the shots is like putting your baby in the car seat after you’ve already arrived at the store – the protection isn’t there for the most important part of the journey!”
In cases where parents refuse vaccination, you should not expect to change a parent’s mind in a single visit, but instead focus on building the patient-provider bond. However, presenting information the parent may have already seen, such as vaccination data from the Food and Drug Administration or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, may alienate parents who identify with groups that share vaccine-hesitant viewpoints and erode your ability to persuade a parent’s intent to vaccinate.
A study by Nyhan et al. randomized parents to receive one of four pieces of interventions about the MMR vaccine: information from the CDC explaining the lack of evidence linking autism and the vaccine, information about the dangers of the diseases prevented by the vaccine, images of children who have had diseases prevented by the vaccine, and a “dramatic narrative” from a CDC fact sheet about a child who nearly died of measles. The researchers found no informational intervention helped in persuading to vaccinate in parents who had the “least favorable” attitudes toward the vaccine. And in the case of the dramatic narrative, there was an increased misperception about the MMR vaccine (Pediatrics. 2014;133[4]:e835-e842).
Dr. Hempstead and Dr. Saba outlined four rhetorical devices to include in conversations with patients about vaccination: cognitive ease, natural assumption, appeal to identity, and using advantageous terms.
Cognitive ease
Cognitive ease means creating an environment in which the patient is relaxed, comfortable, and more likely to be agreeable. Recognize when the tone shifts, and strive to maintain this calm and comfortable environment throughout the discussion. “If your blood pressure is coming up, that means theirs is, too,” Dr. Hempstead said.
Natural assumption
How you are offering the vaccination also matters, he added. Rather than asking whether a patient wants to vaccinate (“Have you thought about your flu vaccine this year?”), instead frame the discussion with vaccination as the default option (“Is your child due for a flu vaccination this year? Yes, he is. Let’s get that taken care of today”). Equating inaction with vaccination prevents the risk fallacy phenomenon from occurring in which, when given multiple options, people give equal weight to each option and may choose not to vaccinate, Dr. Hempstead noted.
Dr. Saba cited research that backed this approach. In a study by Opel et al., using a “presumptive” approach instead of a “participatory” approach when discussing a provider’s recommendation to vaccinate helped: The presumptive conversations had an odds ratio of 17.5, compared with the participatory approach. In cases in which parents resisted the provider’s recommendations, 50% of providers persisted with their original recommendations, and 47% of parents who initially resisted the recommendations agreed to vaccinate (Pediatrics. 2013;132[6]:1037-46).
Appeal to identity
Another strategy to use is appealing to the patient’s identity as a good parent and link the concept of vaccination with the good parent identity. Forging a new common identity with the parents through common beliefs – such as recognizing that networks to which parents belong are an important part of his or her identify – and reemphasizing the mutual desire to protect the child is another strategy.
Using advantageous terms
Positive terms, such as “protection,” “health,” “safety,” and “what’s best,” are much better words to use in conversation with parents and have more staying power than negative terms, like “autism” and “side effects,” Dr. Hempstead said.
“Stay with positive messaging,” he said. “Immediately coming back to the positive impact of this vaccine, why we care so much, why we’re doing this vaccine, is absolutely critical.”
Dr. Hempstead and Dr. Saba reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
ORLANDO – Putting parents at ease, making vaccination the default option during discussions, appealing to their identity as a good parent, and focusing on positive word choice during discussions are the techniques two pediatricians have recommended using to get vaccine-hesitant parents to immunize their children.
“Your goal is to get parents to immunize their kids,” Katrina Saba, MD, of the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif., said during an interactive group panel at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Our goal is not to win a debate. You don’t have to correct every mistaken idea.”
“And really importantly, as we know, belief trumps science,” she added. “Their belief is so much stronger than our proof, and their belief will not be changed by evidence.”
Many parents who are vaccine- hesitant also belong to a social network that forms or reinforces their beliefs, and attacking those beliefs is the same as attacking their identity, Dr. Saba noted. “When you attack someone’s identity, you are immediately seen as not like them, and if you’re not like them, you’ve lost your strength in persuading them.”
Dr. Saba; Kenneth Hempstead, MD; and other pediatricians and educators in the Permanente Medical Group developed a framework for pediatricians and educators to talk with their patients about immunization at their center after California passed a law in 2013 that required health care professionals to discuss vaccines with patients and sign off that they had that discussion.
“We felt that, if we were going to be by law required to have that discussion, maybe we needed some new tools to have [the discussion] more effectively,” Dr. Saba said. “Because clearly, [what we were doing ] wasn’t working or there wouldn’t have been a need for that law.”
Dr. Hempstead explained the concerns of three major categories of vaccine-hesitant parents: those patients who are unsure of whether they should vaccinate, parents who wish to delay vaccination, and parents who refuse vaccination of their children.
Each parent requires a different approach for discussing the importance of vaccination based on their level of vaccine hesitancy, he said. For parents who are unsure, they may require general information about the safety and importance of vaccines.
Parents who delay immunization may have less trust in vaccines, have done research in their own social networks, and may present alternatives to a standard immunization schedule or want to omit certain vaccines from their child’s immunization schedule, he noted. Using the analogy of a car seat is one approach to identify the importance of vaccination to these parents: “Waiting to give the shots is like putting your baby in the car seat after you’ve already arrived at the store – the protection isn’t there for the most important part of the journey!”
In cases where parents refuse vaccination, you should not expect to change a parent’s mind in a single visit, but instead focus on building the patient-provider bond. However, presenting information the parent may have already seen, such as vaccination data from the Food and Drug Administration or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, may alienate parents who identify with groups that share vaccine-hesitant viewpoints and erode your ability to persuade a parent’s intent to vaccinate.
A study by Nyhan et al. randomized parents to receive one of four pieces of interventions about the MMR vaccine: information from the CDC explaining the lack of evidence linking autism and the vaccine, information about the dangers of the diseases prevented by the vaccine, images of children who have had diseases prevented by the vaccine, and a “dramatic narrative” from a CDC fact sheet about a child who nearly died of measles. The researchers found no informational intervention helped in persuading to vaccinate in parents who had the “least favorable” attitudes toward the vaccine. And in the case of the dramatic narrative, there was an increased misperception about the MMR vaccine (Pediatrics. 2014;133[4]:e835-e842).
Dr. Hempstead and Dr. Saba outlined four rhetorical devices to include in conversations with patients about vaccination: cognitive ease, natural assumption, appeal to identity, and using advantageous terms.
Cognitive ease
Cognitive ease means creating an environment in which the patient is relaxed, comfortable, and more likely to be agreeable. Recognize when the tone shifts, and strive to maintain this calm and comfortable environment throughout the discussion. “If your blood pressure is coming up, that means theirs is, too,” Dr. Hempstead said.
Natural assumption
How you are offering the vaccination also matters, he added. Rather than asking whether a patient wants to vaccinate (“Have you thought about your flu vaccine this year?”), instead frame the discussion with vaccination as the default option (“Is your child due for a flu vaccination this year? Yes, he is. Let’s get that taken care of today”). Equating inaction with vaccination prevents the risk fallacy phenomenon from occurring in which, when given multiple options, people give equal weight to each option and may choose not to vaccinate, Dr. Hempstead noted.
Dr. Saba cited research that backed this approach. In a study by Opel et al., using a “presumptive” approach instead of a “participatory” approach when discussing a provider’s recommendation to vaccinate helped: The presumptive conversations had an odds ratio of 17.5, compared with the participatory approach. In cases in which parents resisted the provider’s recommendations, 50% of providers persisted with their original recommendations, and 47% of parents who initially resisted the recommendations agreed to vaccinate (Pediatrics. 2013;132[6]:1037-46).
Appeal to identity
Another strategy to use is appealing to the patient’s identity as a good parent and link the concept of vaccination with the good parent identity. Forging a new common identity with the parents through common beliefs – such as recognizing that networks to which parents belong are an important part of his or her identify – and reemphasizing the mutual desire to protect the child is another strategy.
Using advantageous terms
Positive terms, such as “protection,” “health,” “safety,” and “what’s best,” are much better words to use in conversation with parents and have more staying power than negative terms, like “autism” and “side effects,” Dr. Hempstead said.
“Stay with positive messaging,” he said. “Immediately coming back to the positive impact of this vaccine, why we care so much, why we’re doing this vaccine, is absolutely critical.”
Dr. Hempstead and Dr. Saba reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
ORLANDO – Putting parents at ease, making vaccination the default option during discussions, appealing to their identity as a good parent, and focusing on positive word choice during discussions are the techniques two pediatricians have recommended using to get vaccine-hesitant parents to immunize their children.
“Your goal is to get parents to immunize their kids,” Katrina Saba, MD, of the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif., said during an interactive group panel at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Our goal is not to win a debate. You don’t have to correct every mistaken idea.”
“And really importantly, as we know, belief trumps science,” she added. “Their belief is so much stronger than our proof, and their belief will not be changed by evidence.”
Many parents who are vaccine- hesitant also belong to a social network that forms or reinforces their beliefs, and attacking those beliefs is the same as attacking their identity, Dr. Saba noted. “When you attack someone’s identity, you are immediately seen as not like them, and if you’re not like them, you’ve lost your strength in persuading them.”
Dr. Saba; Kenneth Hempstead, MD; and other pediatricians and educators in the Permanente Medical Group developed a framework for pediatricians and educators to talk with their patients about immunization at their center after California passed a law in 2013 that required health care professionals to discuss vaccines with patients and sign off that they had that discussion.
“We felt that, if we were going to be by law required to have that discussion, maybe we needed some new tools to have [the discussion] more effectively,” Dr. Saba said. “Because clearly, [what we were doing ] wasn’t working or there wouldn’t have been a need for that law.”
Dr. Hempstead explained the concerns of three major categories of vaccine-hesitant parents: those patients who are unsure of whether they should vaccinate, parents who wish to delay vaccination, and parents who refuse vaccination of their children.
Each parent requires a different approach for discussing the importance of vaccination based on their level of vaccine hesitancy, he said. For parents who are unsure, they may require general information about the safety and importance of vaccines.
Parents who delay immunization may have less trust in vaccines, have done research in their own social networks, and may present alternatives to a standard immunization schedule or want to omit certain vaccines from their child’s immunization schedule, he noted. Using the analogy of a car seat is one approach to identify the importance of vaccination to these parents: “Waiting to give the shots is like putting your baby in the car seat after you’ve already arrived at the store – the protection isn’t there for the most important part of the journey!”
In cases where parents refuse vaccination, you should not expect to change a parent’s mind in a single visit, but instead focus on building the patient-provider bond. However, presenting information the parent may have already seen, such as vaccination data from the Food and Drug Administration or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, may alienate parents who identify with groups that share vaccine-hesitant viewpoints and erode your ability to persuade a parent’s intent to vaccinate.
A study by Nyhan et al. randomized parents to receive one of four pieces of interventions about the MMR vaccine: information from the CDC explaining the lack of evidence linking autism and the vaccine, information about the dangers of the diseases prevented by the vaccine, images of children who have had diseases prevented by the vaccine, and a “dramatic narrative” from a CDC fact sheet about a child who nearly died of measles. The researchers found no informational intervention helped in persuading to vaccinate in parents who had the “least favorable” attitudes toward the vaccine. And in the case of the dramatic narrative, there was an increased misperception about the MMR vaccine (Pediatrics. 2014;133[4]:e835-e842).
Dr. Hempstead and Dr. Saba outlined four rhetorical devices to include in conversations with patients about vaccination: cognitive ease, natural assumption, appeal to identity, and using advantageous terms.
Cognitive ease
Cognitive ease means creating an environment in which the patient is relaxed, comfortable, and more likely to be agreeable. Recognize when the tone shifts, and strive to maintain this calm and comfortable environment throughout the discussion. “If your blood pressure is coming up, that means theirs is, too,” Dr. Hempstead said.
Natural assumption
How you are offering the vaccination also matters, he added. Rather than asking whether a patient wants to vaccinate (“Have you thought about your flu vaccine this year?”), instead frame the discussion with vaccination as the default option (“Is your child due for a flu vaccination this year? Yes, he is. Let’s get that taken care of today”). Equating inaction with vaccination prevents the risk fallacy phenomenon from occurring in which, when given multiple options, people give equal weight to each option and may choose not to vaccinate, Dr. Hempstead noted.
Dr. Saba cited research that backed this approach. In a study by Opel et al., using a “presumptive” approach instead of a “participatory” approach when discussing a provider’s recommendation to vaccinate helped: The presumptive conversations had an odds ratio of 17.5, compared with the participatory approach. In cases in which parents resisted the provider’s recommendations, 50% of providers persisted with their original recommendations, and 47% of parents who initially resisted the recommendations agreed to vaccinate (Pediatrics. 2013;132[6]:1037-46).
Appeal to identity
Another strategy to use is appealing to the patient’s identity as a good parent and link the concept of vaccination with the good parent identity. Forging a new common identity with the parents through common beliefs – such as recognizing that networks to which parents belong are an important part of his or her identify – and reemphasizing the mutual desire to protect the child is another strategy.
Using advantageous terms
Positive terms, such as “protection,” “health,” “safety,” and “what’s best,” are much better words to use in conversation with parents and have more staying power than negative terms, like “autism” and “side effects,” Dr. Hempstead said.
“Stay with positive messaging,” he said. “Immediately coming back to the positive impact of this vaccine, why we care so much, why we’re doing this vaccine, is absolutely critical.”
Dr. Hempstead and Dr. Saba reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAP 18
To Escalate or Not to Escalate MS Therapy After Relapses?
Switching from a moderately effective treatment to a highly effective treatment can improve outcomes.
BERLIN—Relapse-induced escalation to a highly effective disease-modifying therapy (DMT) is associated with a reduced risk of relapses, according to comprehensive nationwide data from Danish patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Escalation is associated with a statistically nonsignificant trend toward reduced time to first one-point worsening of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score over the short-to-medium term. “Escalation of therapy to a highly effective DMT when patients experience relapses on a moderately effective DMT is recommended to improve control of relapse activity,” said Thor Ameri Chalmer, MD, a doctoral student at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, and colleagues at ECTRIMS 2018.
Patients with relapsing-remitting MS who have relapses often switch to a new DMT. Treatment guidelines recommend switching to a highly effective DMT when a patient experiences clinical disease breakthrough. Nevertheless, patients may switch between moderately effective DMTs because of breakthrough disease or adverse effects. Dr. Chalmer and colleagues compared treatment effectiveness between highly effective DMTs and moderately effective DMTs in patients with relapsing-remitting MS who switch therapy because of relapse activity.
In this registry-based cohort study, the investigators retrieved data from the Danish MS Registry on all adults with relapsing-remitting MS. Eligible participants had an EDSS score below 6, experienced a relapse while treated with a moderately effective DMT, and consequently switched to a highly effective DMT or another moderately effective DMT. The groups were compared from treatment initiation until outcome or censoring. Censoring was defined as postbaseline switch between highly effective DMT and moderately effective DMT, cessation of therapy, relocation, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary outcomes were annualized relapse rate (ARR), relapse rate ratio, time to first relapse, and time to first one-point confirmed EDSS worsening. Dr. Chalmer and colleagues used propensity score matching to balance groups, a Cox proportional hazards model to obtain hazard ratios (HR) when modeling time to first relapse and time to first worsening, and negative binomial regression to obtain ARR and relapse rate ratios.
The matched cohort included 814 patients (407 in each group). The median follow-up time was 3.2 years. The group of patients who switched to a highly effective DMT had a 39% lower hazard rate of reaching first relapse (HR, 0.61). ARRs were 0.21 for patients who switched to a highly effective DMT and 0.34 for patients who switched to a moderately effective DMT. Relapse rate ratio for highly effective DMT compared with moderately effective DMT was 0.62. The group who switched to a highly effective DMT had 13% lower hazard rate of one-point EDSS worsening (HR, 0.87).
Switching from a moderately effective treatment to a highly effective treatment can improve outcomes.
Switching from a moderately effective treatment to a highly effective treatment can improve outcomes.
BERLIN—Relapse-induced escalation to a highly effective disease-modifying therapy (DMT) is associated with a reduced risk of relapses, according to comprehensive nationwide data from Danish patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Escalation is associated with a statistically nonsignificant trend toward reduced time to first one-point worsening of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score over the short-to-medium term. “Escalation of therapy to a highly effective DMT when patients experience relapses on a moderately effective DMT is recommended to improve control of relapse activity,” said Thor Ameri Chalmer, MD, a doctoral student at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, and colleagues at ECTRIMS 2018.
Patients with relapsing-remitting MS who have relapses often switch to a new DMT. Treatment guidelines recommend switching to a highly effective DMT when a patient experiences clinical disease breakthrough. Nevertheless, patients may switch between moderately effective DMTs because of breakthrough disease or adverse effects. Dr. Chalmer and colleagues compared treatment effectiveness between highly effective DMTs and moderately effective DMTs in patients with relapsing-remitting MS who switch therapy because of relapse activity.
In this registry-based cohort study, the investigators retrieved data from the Danish MS Registry on all adults with relapsing-remitting MS. Eligible participants had an EDSS score below 6, experienced a relapse while treated with a moderately effective DMT, and consequently switched to a highly effective DMT or another moderately effective DMT. The groups were compared from treatment initiation until outcome or censoring. Censoring was defined as postbaseline switch between highly effective DMT and moderately effective DMT, cessation of therapy, relocation, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary outcomes were annualized relapse rate (ARR), relapse rate ratio, time to first relapse, and time to first one-point confirmed EDSS worsening. Dr. Chalmer and colleagues used propensity score matching to balance groups, a Cox proportional hazards model to obtain hazard ratios (HR) when modeling time to first relapse and time to first worsening, and negative binomial regression to obtain ARR and relapse rate ratios.
The matched cohort included 814 patients (407 in each group). The median follow-up time was 3.2 years. The group of patients who switched to a highly effective DMT had a 39% lower hazard rate of reaching first relapse (HR, 0.61). ARRs were 0.21 for patients who switched to a highly effective DMT and 0.34 for patients who switched to a moderately effective DMT. Relapse rate ratio for highly effective DMT compared with moderately effective DMT was 0.62. The group who switched to a highly effective DMT had 13% lower hazard rate of one-point EDSS worsening (HR, 0.87).
BERLIN—Relapse-induced escalation to a highly effective disease-modifying therapy (DMT) is associated with a reduced risk of relapses, according to comprehensive nationwide data from Danish patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Escalation is associated with a statistically nonsignificant trend toward reduced time to first one-point worsening of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score over the short-to-medium term. “Escalation of therapy to a highly effective DMT when patients experience relapses on a moderately effective DMT is recommended to improve control of relapse activity,” said Thor Ameri Chalmer, MD, a doctoral student at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, and colleagues at ECTRIMS 2018.
Patients with relapsing-remitting MS who have relapses often switch to a new DMT. Treatment guidelines recommend switching to a highly effective DMT when a patient experiences clinical disease breakthrough. Nevertheless, patients may switch between moderately effective DMTs because of breakthrough disease or adverse effects. Dr. Chalmer and colleagues compared treatment effectiveness between highly effective DMTs and moderately effective DMTs in patients with relapsing-remitting MS who switch therapy because of relapse activity.
In this registry-based cohort study, the investigators retrieved data from the Danish MS Registry on all adults with relapsing-remitting MS. Eligible participants had an EDSS score below 6, experienced a relapse while treated with a moderately effective DMT, and consequently switched to a highly effective DMT or another moderately effective DMT. The groups were compared from treatment initiation until outcome or censoring. Censoring was defined as postbaseline switch between highly effective DMT and moderately effective DMT, cessation of therapy, relocation, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary outcomes were annualized relapse rate (ARR), relapse rate ratio, time to first relapse, and time to first one-point confirmed EDSS worsening. Dr. Chalmer and colleagues used propensity score matching to balance groups, a Cox proportional hazards model to obtain hazard ratios (HR) when modeling time to first relapse and time to first worsening, and negative binomial regression to obtain ARR and relapse rate ratios.
The matched cohort included 814 patients (407 in each group). The median follow-up time was 3.2 years. The group of patients who switched to a highly effective DMT had a 39% lower hazard rate of reaching first relapse (HR, 0.61). ARRs were 0.21 for patients who switched to a highly effective DMT and 0.34 for patients who switched to a moderately effective DMT. Relapse rate ratio for highly effective DMT compared with moderately effective DMT was 0.62. The group who switched to a highly effective DMT had 13% lower hazard rate of one-point EDSS worsening (HR, 0.87).
Which Treatments Are Effective Against Intractable Cluster Headache?
Current and emerging therapies may reduce the social, economic, and psychiatric burden of this painful disorder.
ASHEVILLE, NC—Patients with intractable cluster headache present an urgent challenge to neurologists. The disorder is associated with “the worst pain you can experience,” and most patients have suicidal ideation, said Todd Rozen, MD, a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. To help these patients, it is necessary to confirm the diagnosis, conduct proper evaluations for secondary mimics, and choose the most appropriate and effective treatments, he said at the Eighth Annual Scientific Meeting of the Southern Headache Society.
Making the Diagnosis
The current diagnostic criteria for cluster headache include severe unilateral orbital, supraorbital, or temporal pain that lasts for 15 minutes to 180 minutes when untreated. Patients may have conjunctival injection, lacrimation, rhinorrhea, or a sense of restlessness. Most patients have between one and three attacks per day, and the average attack lasts from 60 minutes to 75 minutes, said Dr. Rozen. Migrainous features such as photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea are common in cluster headache, but should not affect the diagnosis. If the duration and frequency of attacks are consistent with cluster headache, then that is the correct diagnosis, said Dr. Rozen.
Like migraine, cluster headache may be episodic or chronic. Episodic cluster headache is more likely to remit than chronic cluster headache, but the former may transition to the latter.
The European Headache Federation has defined treatment-refractory cluster headache as cluster headache that fails to respond to more than three typical preventive medicines. Regardless of whether the disorder is episodic or chronic for a given patient, it may become intractable, said Dr. Rozen.
Reasons for Intractability
One potential reason for intractability is an incorrect diagnosis. Cluster headache is a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), and a person with a diagnosis of intractable cluster headache may in fact have a different TAC. The TACs form a spectrum, and a patient’s disorder may change from cluster headache to paroxysmal hemicrania, for example, said Dr. Rozen. “Always think of [attack] duration and frequency to make your diagnosis.”
Another potential reason for intractability is that the headache is secondary to a lesion. The secondary headache disorders often mimic the primary headache disorders, but do not respond to typical medications. The three most common causes of secondary cluster headache are secretory pituitary tumors, carotid dissections, and cavernous sinus lesions. “Every cluster patient … deserves a brain MRI with or without the pituitary cuts, an MR angiogram (both head and neck with dissection protocol), and pituitary hormones,” said Dr. Rozen.
Established and Emerging Acute Treatments
The most common acute treatments for cluster headache are sumatriptan injection or nasal spray and high-flow oxygen. Most patients respond to these treatments, but for those who do not, neurologists may consider options such as dihydroergotamine (DHE) injection, ergotamines, intranasal lidocaine, olanzapine, chlorpromazine suppository, and indomethacin suppository. Data from the US Cluster Headache Survey, however, indicate that less than 45% of patients respond to these treatments.
Most patients with cluster headache do not respond to oral acute medications because they have slow onsets of action. An exception is zolmitriptan, which is administered in a 10-mg dose, as opposed to the traditional 5-mg oral dose. Another acute nonmedicinal therapy is a suboccipital nerve block, which often terminates a headache within a minute, said Dr. Rozen.
In addition, new acute treatments for cluster headache have emerged. One is the delivery of oxygen by demand valve, which provides oxygen according to the user’s respiration rate and tidal volume. Unlike previous delivery methods, which deliver a small amount of ambient air, the demand valve delivers 100% pure oxygen. The demand valve also allows hyperventilation, which may be crucial for effective treatment, said Dr. Rozen. Several studies have suggested that demand-valve oxygen may be more effective than the typically prescribed continuous-flow oxygen administered through a nonrebreather face mask.
In 2017, the FDA cleared gammaCore, a noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device, for the acute treatment of episodic cluster headache. Patients can use the device to deliver two-minute doses of stimulation through a conductive gel applied to the neck. The treatment may be considered for patients who have not responded to other acute medications, said Dr. Rozen.
In a study by Schoenen and colleagues, 67% of patients with chronic cluster headache who were treated with on-demand sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation achieved pain relief. In comparison, 7% of patients who received sham treatment achieved pain relief. Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is not approved in the United States, however.
Preventive Treatment Is Essential
“It is absolutely key to treat cluster headaches with preventives unless [the patients] have two- to three-week cycles [of attacks],” said Dr. Rozen. Verapamil, lithium, valproic acid, daily corticosteroids, topiramate, melatonin, and methylergonovine can be used for the prevention of cluster headache attacks. Daily corticosteroids are appropriate if the patient’s cycles last for two to three weeks, said Dr. Rozen. Topiramate appears to be more effective in women with cluster headache than men.
Until a patient has failed to respond to all of these preventive treatments, it may be inappropriate to describe his or her disorder as refractory, said Dr. Rozen. If a patient partially responds to one preventive therapy, another can be added. Combination therapy for cluster headache is common, and as many as three medications can be administered concomitantly, said Dr. Rozen. Unlike for other headache disorders, doses for cluster headache can be raised to high levels.
Data from the US Cluster Headache Survey, though, show that less than half of patients respond to preventive treatments. In addition, more than 70% of respondents had never received any preventive treatment, “which is quite scary for such a horrible disorder,” said Dr. Rozen.
Other Treatments May Be Effective
The literature provides a small amount of evidence to support additional treatments for cluster headache. Three studies have indicated a benefit of daily treatment with triptans, particularly frovatriptan, said Dr. Rozen. Data also support transdermal clonidine, indomethacin, and intranasal civamide. “Gabapentin is a wonderful add-on therapy. It is not good as a primary therapy,” said Dr. Rozen. Neurologists also may choose baclofen or mycophenolate mofetil.
Reports indicate that sodium oxybate can alleviate episodic and chronic cluster headache, especially if the patient has multiple nocturnal headaches, said Dr. Rozen. Three trials have examined hyperbaric oxygen, and a placebo-controlled trial found a benefit of warfarin. Rozen, and later Nobre et al, reported that clomiphene was effective and could change the pattern of cluster headache attacks.
Between 40% and 50% of patients respond to a single suboccipital nerve block as preventive therapy. Dr. Rozen has reported on high-volume suboccipital nerve blocks that administer 9 cm3 of 1% lidocaine and a small amount of corticosteroid. This treatment has “an excellent preventive effect in chronic refractory cluster headache,” he added. “Most of these patients have failed eight to 10 preventive [treatments]…. If you fail block one, you will most likely not respond to blocks.” Many patients who respond to this block could respond well to greater occipital nerve stimulation, but it is not easy to get insurance coverage for this treatment, said Dr. Rozen.
Finally, a new class of medications may be approved for cluster headache prevention. The monoclonal calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies, which have been approved for migraine prevention, appear to be effective for episodic cluster headache in clinical trials. These treatments may not show efficacy for chronic cluster headache, however.
—Erik Greb
Suggested Reading
Cohen AS, Burns B, Goadsby PJ. High-flow oxygen for treatment of cluster headache: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302(22):2451-2457.
Nobre ME, Peres MFP, Moreira PF Filho, Leal AJ. Clomiphene treatment may be effective in refractory episodic and chronic cluster headache. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2017;75(9):620-624.
Rozen TD, Fishman RS. Cluster headache in the United States of America: demographics, clinical characteristics, triggers, suicidality, and personal burden. Headache. 2012;52(1):99-113.
Rozen TD, Fishman RS. Demand valve oxygen: a promising new oxygen delivery system for the acute treatment of cluster headache. Pain Med. 2013;14(4):455-459.
Schoenen J, Jensen RH, Lantéri-Minet M, et al. Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) for cluster headache treatment. Pathway CH-1: a randomized, sham-controlled study. Cephalalgia. 2013;33(10):816-830.
Current and emerging therapies may reduce the social, economic, and psychiatric burden of this painful disorder.
Current and emerging therapies may reduce the social, economic, and psychiatric burden of this painful disorder.
ASHEVILLE, NC—Patients with intractable cluster headache present an urgent challenge to neurologists. The disorder is associated with “the worst pain you can experience,” and most patients have suicidal ideation, said Todd Rozen, MD, a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. To help these patients, it is necessary to confirm the diagnosis, conduct proper evaluations for secondary mimics, and choose the most appropriate and effective treatments, he said at the Eighth Annual Scientific Meeting of the Southern Headache Society.
Making the Diagnosis
The current diagnostic criteria for cluster headache include severe unilateral orbital, supraorbital, or temporal pain that lasts for 15 minutes to 180 minutes when untreated. Patients may have conjunctival injection, lacrimation, rhinorrhea, or a sense of restlessness. Most patients have between one and three attacks per day, and the average attack lasts from 60 minutes to 75 minutes, said Dr. Rozen. Migrainous features such as photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea are common in cluster headache, but should not affect the diagnosis. If the duration and frequency of attacks are consistent with cluster headache, then that is the correct diagnosis, said Dr. Rozen.
Like migraine, cluster headache may be episodic or chronic. Episodic cluster headache is more likely to remit than chronic cluster headache, but the former may transition to the latter.
The European Headache Federation has defined treatment-refractory cluster headache as cluster headache that fails to respond to more than three typical preventive medicines. Regardless of whether the disorder is episodic or chronic for a given patient, it may become intractable, said Dr. Rozen.
Reasons for Intractability
One potential reason for intractability is an incorrect diagnosis. Cluster headache is a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), and a person with a diagnosis of intractable cluster headache may in fact have a different TAC. The TACs form a spectrum, and a patient’s disorder may change from cluster headache to paroxysmal hemicrania, for example, said Dr. Rozen. “Always think of [attack] duration and frequency to make your diagnosis.”
Another potential reason for intractability is that the headache is secondary to a lesion. The secondary headache disorders often mimic the primary headache disorders, but do not respond to typical medications. The three most common causes of secondary cluster headache are secretory pituitary tumors, carotid dissections, and cavernous sinus lesions. “Every cluster patient … deserves a brain MRI with or without the pituitary cuts, an MR angiogram (both head and neck with dissection protocol), and pituitary hormones,” said Dr. Rozen.
Established and Emerging Acute Treatments
The most common acute treatments for cluster headache are sumatriptan injection or nasal spray and high-flow oxygen. Most patients respond to these treatments, but for those who do not, neurologists may consider options such as dihydroergotamine (DHE) injection, ergotamines, intranasal lidocaine, olanzapine, chlorpromazine suppository, and indomethacin suppository. Data from the US Cluster Headache Survey, however, indicate that less than 45% of patients respond to these treatments.
Most patients with cluster headache do not respond to oral acute medications because they have slow onsets of action. An exception is zolmitriptan, which is administered in a 10-mg dose, as opposed to the traditional 5-mg oral dose. Another acute nonmedicinal therapy is a suboccipital nerve block, which often terminates a headache within a minute, said Dr. Rozen.
In addition, new acute treatments for cluster headache have emerged. One is the delivery of oxygen by demand valve, which provides oxygen according to the user’s respiration rate and tidal volume. Unlike previous delivery methods, which deliver a small amount of ambient air, the demand valve delivers 100% pure oxygen. The demand valve also allows hyperventilation, which may be crucial for effective treatment, said Dr. Rozen. Several studies have suggested that demand-valve oxygen may be more effective than the typically prescribed continuous-flow oxygen administered through a nonrebreather face mask.
In 2017, the FDA cleared gammaCore, a noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device, for the acute treatment of episodic cluster headache. Patients can use the device to deliver two-minute doses of stimulation through a conductive gel applied to the neck. The treatment may be considered for patients who have not responded to other acute medications, said Dr. Rozen.
In a study by Schoenen and colleagues, 67% of patients with chronic cluster headache who were treated with on-demand sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation achieved pain relief. In comparison, 7% of patients who received sham treatment achieved pain relief. Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is not approved in the United States, however.
Preventive Treatment Is Essential
“It is absolutely key to treat cluster headaches with preventives unless [the patients] have two- to three-week cycles [of attacks],” said Dr. Rozen. Verapamil, lithium, valproic acid, daily corticosteroids, topiramate, melatonin, and methylergonovine can be used for the prevention of cluster headache attacks. Daily corticosteroids are appropriate if the patient’s cycles last for two to three weeks, said Dr. Rozen. Topiramate appears to be more effective in women with cluster headache than men.
Until a patient has failed to respond to all of these preventive treatments, it may be inappropriate to describe his or her disorder as refractory, said Dr. Rozen. If a patient partially responds to one preventive therapy, another can be added. Combination therapy for cluster headache is common, and as many as three medications can be administered concomitantly, said Dr. Rozen. Unlike for other headache disorders, doses for cluster headache can be raised to high levels.
Data from the US Cluster Headache Survey, though, show that less than half of patients respond to preventive treatments. In addition, more than 70% of respondents had never received any preventive treatment, “which is quite scary for such a horrible disorder,” said Dr. Rozen.
Other Treatments May Be Effective
The literature provides a small amount of evidence to support additional treatments for cluster headache. Three studies have indicated a benefit of daily treatment with triptans, particularly frovatriptan, said Dr. Rozen. Data also support transdermal clonidine, indomethacin, and intranasal civamide. “Gabapentin is a wonderful add-on therapy. It is not good as a primary therapy,” said Dr. Rozen. Neurologists also may choose baclofen or mycophenolate mofetil.
Reports indicate that sodium oxybate can alleviate episodic and chronic cluster headache, especially if the patient has multiple nocturnal headaches, said Dr. Rozen. Three trials have examined hyperbaric oxygen, and a placebo-controlled trial found a benefit of warfarin. Rozen, and later Nobre et al, reported that clomiphene was effective and could change the pattern of cluster headache attacks.
Between 40% and 50% of patients respond to a single suboccipital nerve block as preventive therapy. Dr. Rozen has reported on high-volume suboccipital nerve blocks that administer 9 cm3 of 1% lidocaine and a small amount of corticosteroid. This treatment has “an excellent preventive effect in chronic refractory cluster headache,” he added. “Most of these patients have failed eight to 10 preventive [treatments]…. If you fail block one, you will most likely not respond to blocks.” Many patients who respond to this block could respond well to greater occipital nerve stimulation, but it is not easy to get insurance coverage for this treatment, said Dr. Rozen.
Finally, a new class of medications may be approved for cluster headache prevention. The monoclonal calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies, which have been approved for migraine prevention, appear to be effective for episodic cluster headache in clinical trials. These treatments may not show efficacy for chronic cluster headache, however.
—Erik Greb
Suggested Reading
Cohen AS, Burns B, Goadsby PJ. High-flow oxygen for treatment of cluster headache: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302(22):2451-2457.
Nobre ME, Peres MFP, Moreira PF Filho, Leal AJ. Clomiphene treatment may be effective in refractory episodic and chronic cluster headache. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2017;75(9):620-624.
Rozen TD, Fishman RS. Cluster headache in the United States of America: demographics, clinical characteristics, triggers, suicidality, and personal burden. Headache. 2012;52(1):99-113.
Rozen TD, Fishman RS. Demand valve oxygen: a promising new oxygen delivery system for the acute treatment of cluster headache. Pain Med. 2013;14(4):455-459.
Schoenen J, Jensen RH, Lantéri-Minet M, et al. Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) for cluster headache treatment. Pathway CH-1: a randomized, sham-controlled study. Cephalalgia. 2013;33(10):816-830.
ASHEVILLE, NC—Patients with intractable cluster headache present an urgent challenge to neurologists. The disorder is associated with “the worst pain you can experience,” and most patients have suicidal ideation, said Todd Rozen, MD, a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. To help these patients, it is necessary to confirm the diagnosis, conduct proper evaluations for secondary mimics, and choose the most appropriate and effective treatments, he said at the Eighth Annual Scientific Meeting of the Southern Headache Society.
Making the Diagnosis
The current diagnostic criteria for cluster headache include severe unilateral orbital, supraorbital, or temporal pain that lasts for 15 minutes to 180 minutes when untreated. Patients may have conjunctival injection, lacrimation, rhinorrhea, or a sense of restlessness. Most patients have between one and three attacks per day, and the average attack lasts from 60 minutes to 75 minutes, said Dr. Rozen. Migrainous features such as photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea are common in cluster headache, but should not affect the diagnosis. If the duration and frequency of attacks are consistent with cluster headache, then that is the correct diagnosis, said Dr. Rozen.
Like migraine, cluster headache may be episodic or chronic. Episodic cluster headache is more likely to remit than chronic cluster headache, but the former may transition to the latter.
The European Headache Federation has defined treatment-refractory cluster headache as cluster headache that fails to respond to more than three typical preventive medicines. Regardless of whether the disorder is episodic or chronic for a given patient, it may become intractable, said Dr. Rozen.
Reasons for Intractability
One potential reason for intractability is an incorrect diagnosis. Cluster headache is a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), and a person with a diagnosis of intractable cluster headache may in fact have a different TAC. The TACs form a spectrum, and a patient’s disorder may change from cluster headache to paroxysmal hemicrania, for example, said Dr. Rozen. “Always think of [attack] duration and frequency to make your diagnosis.”
Another potential reason for intractability is that the headache is secondary to a lesion. The secondary headache disorders often mimic the primary headache disorders, but do not respond to typical medications. The three most common causes of secondary cluster headache are secretory pituitary tumors, carotid dissections, and cavernous sinus lesions. “Every cluster patient … deserves a brain MRI with or without the pituitary cuts, an MR angiogram (both head and neck with dissection protocol), and pituitary hormones,” said Dr. Rozen.
Established and Emerging Acute Treatments
The most common acute treatments for cluster headache are sumatriptan injection or nasal spray and high-flow oxygen. Most patients respond to these treatments, but for those who do not, neurologists may consider options such as dihydroergotamine (DHE) injection, ergotamines, intranasal lidocaine, olanzapine, chlorpromazine suppository, and indomethacin suppository. Data from the US Cluster Headache Survey, however, indicate that less than 45% of patients respond to these treatments.
Most patients with cluster headache do not respond to oral acute medications because they have slow onsets of action. An exception is zolmitriptan, which is administered in a 10-mg dose, as opposed to the traditional 5-mg oral dose. Another acute nonmedicinal therapy is a suboccipital nerve block, which often terminates a headache within a minute, said Dr. Rozen.
In addition, new acute treatments for cluster headache have emerged. One is the delivery of oxygen by demand valve, which provides oxygen according to the user’s respiration rate and tidal volume. Unlike previous delivery methods, which deliver a small amount of ambient air, the demand valve delivers 100% pure oxygen. The demand valve also allows hyperventilation, which may be crucial for effective treatment, said Dr. Rozen. Several studies have suggested that demand-valve oxygen may be more effective than the typically prescribed continuous-flow oxygen administered through a nonrebreather face mask.
In 2017, the FDA cleared gammaCore, a noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device, for the acute treatment of episodic cluster headache. Patients can use the device to deliver two-minute doses of stimulation through a conductive gel applied to the neck. The treatment may be considered for patients who have not responded to other acute medications, said Dr. Rozen.
In a study by Schoenen and colleagues, 67% of patients with chronic cluster headache who were treated with on-demand sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation achieved pain relief. In comparison, 7% of patients who received sham treatment achieved pain relief. Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is not approved in the United States, however.
Preventive Treatment Is Essential
“It is absolutely key to treat cluster headaches with preventives unless [the patients] have two- to three-week cycles [of attacks],” said Dr. Rozen. Verapamil, lithium, valproic acid, daily corticosteroids, topiramate, melatonin, and methylergonovine can be used for the prevention of cluster headache attacks. Daily corticosteroids are appropriate if the patient’s cycles last for two to three weeks, said Dr. Rozen. Topiramate appears to be more effective in women with cluster headache than men.
Until a patient has failed to respond to all of these preventive treatments, it may be inappropriate to describe his or her disorder as refractory, said Dr. Rozen. If a patient partially responds to one preventive therapy, another can be added. Combination therapy for cluster headache is common, and as many as three medications can be administered concomitantly, said Dr. Rozen. Unlike for other headache disorders, doses for cluster headache can be raised to high levels.
Data from the US Cluster Headache Survey, though, show that less than half of patients respond to preventive treatments. In addition, more than 70% of respondents had never received any preventive treatment, “which is quite scary for such a horrible disorder,” said Dr. Rozen.
Other Treatments May Be Effective
The literature provides a small amount of evidence to support additional treatments for cluster headache. Three studies have indicated a benefit of daily treatment with triptans, particularly frovatriptan, said Dr. Rozen. Data also support transdermal clonidine, indomethacin, and intranasal civamide. “Gabapentin is a wonderful add-on therapy. It is not good as a primary therapy,” said Dr. Rozen. Neurologists also may choose baclofen or mycophenolate mofetil.
Reports indicate that sodium oxybate can alleviate episodic and chronic cluster headache, especially if the patient has multiple nocturnal headaches, said Dr. Rozen. Three trials have examined hyperbaric oxygen, and a placebo-controlled trial found a benefit of warfarin. Rozen, and later Nobre et al, reported that clomiphene was effective and could change the pattern of cluster headache attacks.
Between 40% and 50% of patients respond to a single suboccipital nerve block as preventive therapy. Dr. Rozen has reported on high-volume suboccipital nerve blocks that administer 9 cm3 of 1% lidocaine and a small amount of corticosteroid. This treatment has “an excellent preventive effect in chronic refractory cluster headache,” he added. “Most of these patients have failed eight to 10 preventive [treatments]…. If you fail block one, you will most likely not respond to blocks.” Many patients who respond to this block could respond well to greater occipital nerve stimulation, but it is not easy to get insurance coverage for this treatment, said Dr. Rozen.
Finally, a new class of medications may be approved for cluster headache prevention. The monoclonal calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies, which have been approved for migraine prevention, appear to be effective for episodic cluster headache in clinical trials. These treatments may not show efficacy for chronic cluster headache, however.
—Erik Greb
Suggested Reading
Cohen AS, Burns B, Goadsby PJ. High-flow oxygen for treatment of cluster headache: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302(22):2451-2457.
Nobre ME, Peres MFP, Moreira PF Filho, Leal AJ. Clomiphene treatment may be effective in refractory episodic and chronic cluster headache. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2017;75(9):620-624.
Rozen TD, Fishman RS. Cluster headache in the United States of America: demographics, clinical characteristics, triggers, suicidality, and personal burden. Headache. 2012;52(1):99-113.
Rozen TD, Fishman RS. Demand valve oxygen: a promising new oxygen delivery system for the acute treatment of cluster headache. Pain Med. 2013;14(4):455-459.
Schoenen J, Jensen RH, Lantéri-Minet M, et al. Stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) for cluster headache treatment. Pathway CH-1: a randomized, sham-controlled study. Cephalalgia. 2013;33(10):816-830.
AAP strengthens stance against corporal punishment
ORLANDO – The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a new policy statement taking a stronger stance against corporal punishment, including spanking, 20 years after releasing its last position statement on effective discipline.
The 1998 policy statement discouraged the use of corporal punishment and encouraged parents to seek other ways to discipline their children, while the latest statement goes further, citing the latest research showing corporal punishment’s harmful effects on children and encouraging pediatricians to counsel parents about the harms of corporal punishment and offer alternative forms of discipline. The 2018 policy statement will be published in the December issue of Pediatrics.
Support for corporal punishment, such as spanking, is declining. According to the Child Trends data bank, 76% of men and 66% of women supported spanking in some cases, compared with 84% of men and 82% of women in 1986. In its latest statement, the AAP noted that 6% of pediatricians (92% in primary care) supported spanking in a 2016 survey of 787 pediatricians.
In a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Ryan D. Brown, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, noted that studies have shown children who are spanked are more likely to exhibit mental health problems, antisocial behavior, aggression, negative relationships with a parent, low self-esteem, externalizing behavior such as acting out, substance abuse, low moral internalization, and are more likely to be victims of physical abuse. He cited a study showing that children who were spanked one time per month had a 14%-19% reduction in the decision making area of their brains (Neuroimage. 2009 Aug;47 Suppl 2:T66-T71) and another study showing that children spanked aged between 2 and 9 years had 2.8-5.0 fewer IQ points than children who were not spanked (J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2009 Jul 22;18[5]:459-83).
Science has shown that there are more effective ways of disciplining children, and pediatricians are the experts who can explain the difference between discipline and punishment. Parents can use discipline as a teaching opportunity while corporal punishment inflicts physical pain on children with the intent to modify behavior. However, this does not train children to learn. “We want to teach our children to grow,” Dr. Brown said.
He pointed out the AAP’s policy on ipecac syrup and erythromycin/sulfafurazole for otitis media as examples of recommendations changing when more scientific data becomes available.
“[W]hen we get parents that say, ‘You know what? I was spanked as a kid and I turned out okay,’ I said, ‘You know, I rode in a car without a seat belt, but science has shown seat belts are effective,’ ” Dr. Brown said.
Instead of spanking and other forms of corporal punishment, parents should practice positive parenting, such as telling a child when they are being “good,” so children understand what good behavior looks like to build up self-esteem. Parents also should play with their children daily and provide simple, easy-to-understand commands. “Interact with the kids so they can see what is good behavior,” he said.
Disciplining children should be swift, age appropriate relative to mental rather than chronological age, and the discipline should “fit the crime,” Dr. Brown said. Parents also should not discipline a child in accidental situations, such as dropping a glass when helping clean up the dinner table, he added.
“The only time I kind of say that [discipline] should be delayed is in kids [who] understand the delay,” such as teenagers, Dr. Brown added.
Pediatricians can implement the new guidelines in their practices by providing resources to parents about alternative forms of discipline, such as the AAP sites HealthyChildren.org and Connected Kids, training office staff in diffusing stressful situations between a caregiver and a child, and making their office a “no hit zone” for caregivers and children.
Dr. Brown reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
ORLANDO – The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a new policy statement taking a stronger stance against corporal punishment, including spanking, 20 years after releasing its last position statement on effective discipline.
The 1998 policy statement discouraged the use of corporal punishment and encouraged parents to seek other ways to discipline their children, while the latest statement goes further, citing the latest research showing corporal punishment’s harmful effects on children and encouraging pediatricians to counsel parents about the harms of corporal punishment and offer alternative forms of discipline. The 2018 policy statement will be published in the December issue of Pediatrics.
Support for corporal punishment, such as spanking, is declining. According to the Child Trends data bank, 76% of men and 66% of women supported spanking in some cases, compared with 84% of men and 82% of women in 1986. In its latest statement, the AAP noted that 6% of pediatricians (92% in primary care) supported spanking in a 2016 survey of 787 pediatricians.
In a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Ryan D. Brown, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, noted that studies have shown children who are spanked are more likely to exhibit mental health problems, antisocial behavior, aggression, negative relationships with a parent, low self-esteem, externalizing behavior such as acting out, substance abuse, low moral internalization, and are more likely to be victims of physical abuse. He cited a study showing that children who were spanked one time per month had a 14%-19% reduction in the decision making area of their brains (Neuroimage. 2009 Aug;47 Suppl 2:T66-T71) and another study showing that children spanked aged between 2 and 9 years had 2.8-5.0 fewer IQ points than children who were not spanked (J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2009 Jul 22;18[5]:459-83).
Science has shown that there are more effective ways of disciplining children, and pediatricians are the experts who can explain the difference between discipline and punishment. Parents can use discipline as a teaching opportunity while corporal punishment inflicts physical pain on children with the intent to modify behavior. However, this does not train children to learn. “We want to teach our children to grow,” Dr. Brown said.
He pointed out the AAP’s policy on ipecac syrup and erythromycin/sulfafurazole for otitis media as examples of recommendations changing when more scientific data becomes available.
“[W]hen we get parents that say, ‘You know what? I was spanked as a kid and I turned out okay,’ I said, ‘You know, I rode in a car without a seat belt, but science has shown seat belts are effective,’ ” Dr. Brown said.
Instead of spanking and other forms of corporal punishment, parents should practice positive parenting, such as telling a child when they are being “good,” so children understand what good behavior looks like to build up self-esteem. Parents also should play with their children daily and provide simple, easy-to-understand commands. “Interact with the kids so they can see what is good behavior,” he said.
Disciplining children should be swift, age appropriate relative to mental rather than chronological age, and the discipline should “fit the crime,” Dr. Brown said. Parents also should not discipline a child in accidental situations, such as dropping a glass when helping clean up the dinner table, he added.
“The only time I kind of say that [discipline] should be delayed is in kids [who] understand the delay,” such as teenagers, Dr. Brown added.
Pediatricians can implement the new guidelines in their practices by providing resources to parents about alternative forms of discipline, such as the AAP sites HealthyChildren.org and Connected Kids, training office staff in diffusing stressful situations between a caregiver and a child, and making their office a “no hit zone” for caregivers and children.
Dr. Brown reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
ORLANDO – The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a new policy statement taking a stronger stance against corporal punishment, including spanking, 20 years after releasing its last position statement on effective discipline.
The 1998 policy statement discouraged the use of corporal punishment and encouraged parents to seek other ways to discipline their children, while the latest statement goes further, citing the latest research showing corporal punishment’s harmful effects on children and encouraging pediatricians to counsel parents about the harms of corporal punishment and offer alternative forms of discipline. The 2018 policy statement will be published in the December issue of Pediatrics.
Support for corporal punishment, such as spanking, is declining. According to the Child Trends data bank, 76% of men and 66% of women supported spanking in some cases, compared with 84% of men and 82% of women in 1986. In its latest statement, the AAP noted that 6% of pediatricians (92% in primary care) supported spanking in a 2016 survey of 787 pediatricians.
In a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Ryan D. Brown, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, noted that studies have shown children who are spanked are more likely to exhibit mental health problems, antisocial behavior, aggression, negative relationships with a parent, low self-esteem, externalizing behavior such as acting out, substance abuse, low moral internalization, and are more likely to be victims of physical abuse. He cited a study showing that children who were spanked one time per month had a 14%-19% reduction in the decision making area of their brains (Neuroimage. 2009 Aug;47 Suppl 2:T66-T71) and another study showing that children spanked aged between 2 and 9 years had 2.8-5.0 fewer IQ points than children who were not spanked (J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2009 Jul 22;18[5]:459-83).
Science has shown that there are more effective ways of disciplining children, and pediatricians are the experts who can explain the difference between discipline and punishment. Parents can use discipline as a teaching opportunity while corporal punishment inflicts physical pain on children with the intent to modify behavior. However, this does not train children to learn. “We want to teach our children to grow,” Dr. Brown said.
He pointed out the AAP’s policy on ipecac syrup and erythromycin/sulfafurazole for otitis media as examples of recommendations changing when more scientific data becomes available.
“[W]hen we get parents that say, ‘You know what? I was spanked as a kid and I turned out okay,’ I said, ‘You know, I rode in a car without a seat belt, but science has shown seat belts are effective,’ ” Dr. Brown said.
Instead of spanking and other forms of corporal punishment, parents should practice positive parenting, such as telling a child when they are being “good,” so children understand what good behavior looks like to build up self-esteem. Parents also should play with their children daily and provide simple, easy-to-understand commands. “Interact with the kids so they can see what is good behavior,” he said.
Disciplining children should be swift, age appropriate relative to mental rather than chronological age, and the discipline should “fit the crime,” Dr. Brown said. Parents also should not discipline a child in accidental situations, such as dropping a glass when helping clean up the dinner table, he added.
“The only time I kind of say that [discipline] should be delayed is in kids [who] understand the delay,” such as teenagers, Dr. Brown added.
Pediatricians can implement the new guidelines in their practices by providing resources to parents about alternative forms of discipline, such as the AAP sites HealthyChildren.org and Connected Kids, training office staff in diffusing stressful situations between a caregiver and a child, and making their office a “no hit zone” for caregivers and children.
Dr. Brown reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM AAP 2018
AAP: Pediatricians can mitigate conflict effects on children
Pediatricians have a central role in addressing the impact to children caused by armed conflict, including diagnosing and managing health conditions resulting from exposure to associated violence, according to a new American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement.
The recommendation, published in Pediatrics, emphasizes the need for child health professionals to understand the prevalence of armed conflict and its pervasive effects on children and to respond both domestically and globally to the problem. The AAP defines armed conflict as any organized dispute that involves the use of weapons, violence, or force, such as international wars, civil wars, ethnic conflicts, and violence associated with gangs and drug trafficking. Children effected by armed conflict may include refugees forcibly displaced from their countries, unaccompanied immigrant children, and former child combatants, known as child soldiers.
The policy details the various health effects triggered by armed conflict, including physical, mental, developmental, and behavioral health conditions in children as well as indirect effects through deprivation and toxic stress. Children affected by armed conflict, for example, are at increased risk for PTSD, depression, anxiety, and behavioral and psychosomatic problems, which can continue well into adulthood, according to the policy statement.
To address these effects, pediatricians should receive training on trauma-informed care that enables them to recognize the dynamics of traumatic life experiences among children exposed to armed conflict and provide optimal responses, the policy advises.
and can work to mitigate the effects of trauma, according to the policy. The AAP recommends that child health professionals be prepared to diagnose and offer initial management for conditions associated with exposure to armed conflict as well as partner with community mental and behavioral health providers to establish collaborative care networks, when possible. Other AAP recommendations in the policy statement include that child health professionals:
- Be trained to provide “culturally effective care,” defined as “the delivery of care within the context of appropriate physician knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of all cultural distinctions, leading to optimal health outcomes.”
- Collaborate with local refugee resettlement groups and other public and private sector organizations, such as schools, health systems, and social services, to “facilitate the integration of children and families into their communities and to help families meet unmet needs.”
- Receive special preparation before working with refugees in camps or in conflict settings to become familiar with recognized standards for child protection and to better manage the physical, sexual, and psychological injuries caused by armed conflict.
The policy statement goes on to offer recommendations for systems that serve children exposed to armed conflict, advising that such systems should protect exposed children from abuse and exploitation, and offer access to physical, mental, behavioral, developmental, oral, and rehabilitation health services.
Finally, the AAP stressed its support of policies that advance the health, development, well-being, and rights of children affected by armed conflict and displacement. The AAP states that children should not be separated from their families during displacement and resettlement, emphasizing that “an intact family is the optimal environment for children’s health and well-being” and that “in the event of separation, family reunification should be prioritized.”
In addition, the AAP strongly advocates that children affected by armed conflict have access to educational opportunities, noting that pediatricians can act as a voice toward this end.
“There is strong evidence to suggest that education for boys and girls at all levels reduces most forms of political violence,” the authors wrote. “However, education currently receives less than 2% of all humanitarian funding, and girls are more likely than boys to be excluded from education. Because education is a priority for many children and essential for their well-being, child health providers may advocate for their educational rights and access, especially during humanitarian emergencies.”
SOURCE: Shenoda S et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Nov 5. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018.2586.
The new policy by the American Academy of Pediatrics regarding the effects of armed conflict on children is an important and interesting statement. At first look, someone reading statements like “children should be protected from land mines” might easily conclude that what is contained here is simply common sense guidelines.
On an individual level, the statement also urges individual child health professionals to consider getting out of their comfort zone and become more involved in community organizations, advocacy, and public policy. It also directly states that child health professionals should be prepared to diagnose and treat several mental health conditions that many might not consider in their current scope of practice. This is an important point, especially considering that stigma surrounding mental health treatment in many developing countries is even worse than it is in the United States – which means that primary care plays a crucial role in identification and treatment of these conditions.
David C. Rettew, MD , is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics and director of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Vermont’s Center for Children, Youth, and Families in Burlington, Vt. These comments were taken from an interview with Dr. Rettew for this article.
The new policy by the American Academy of Pediatrics regarding the effects of armed conflict on children is an important and interesting statement. At first look, someone reading statements like “children should be protected from land mines” might easily conclude that what is contained here is simply common sense guidelines.
On an individual level, the statement also urges individual child health professionals to consider getting out of their comfort zone and become more involved in community organizations, advocacy, and public policy. It also directly states that child health professionals should be prepared to diagnose and treat several mental health conditions that many might not consider in their current scope of practice. This is an important point, especially considering that stigma surrounding mental health treatment in many developing countries is even worse than it is in the United States – which means that primary care plays a crucial role in identification and treatment of these conditions.
David C. Rettew, MD , is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics and director of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Vermont’s Center for Children, Youth, and Families in Burlington, Vt. These comments were taken from an interview with Dr. Rettew for this article.
The new policy by the American Academy of Pediatrics regarding the effects of armed conflict on children is an important and interesting statement. At first look, someone reading statements like “children should be protected from land mines” might easily conclude that what is contained here is simply common sense guidelines.
On an individual level, the statement also urges individual child health professionals to consider getting out of their comfort zone and become more involved in community organizations, advocacy, and public policy. It also directly states that child health professionals should be prepared to diagnose and treat several mental health conditions that many might not consider in their current scope of practice. This is an important point, especially considering that stigma surrounding mental health treatment in many developing countries is even worse than it is in the United States – which means that primary care plays a crucial role in identification and treatment of these conditions.
David C. Rettew, MD , is an associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics and director of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Vermont’s Center for Children, Youth, and Families in Burlington, Vt. These comments were taken from an interview with Dr. Rettew for this article.
Pediatricians have a central role in addressing the impact to children caused by armed conflict, including diagnosing and managing health conditions resulting from exposure to associated violence, according to a new American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement.
The recommendation, published in Pediatrics, emphasizes the need for child health professionals to understand the prevalence of armed conflict and its pervasive effects on children and to respond both domestically and globally to the problem. The AAP defines armed conflict as any organized dispute that involves the use of weapons, violence, or force, such as international wars, civil wars, ethnic conflicts, and violence associated with gangs and drug trafficking. Children effected by armed conflict may include refugees forcibly displaced from their countries, unaccompanied immigrant children, and former child combatants, known as child soldiers.
The policy details the various health effects triggered by armed conflict, including physical, mental, developmental, and behavioral health conditions in children as well as indirect effects through deprivation and toxic stress. Children affected by armed conflict, for example, are at increased risk for PTSD, depression, anxiety, and behavioral and psychosomatic problems, which can continue well into adulthood, according to the policy statement.
To address these effects, pediatricians should receive training on trauma-informed care that enables them to recognize the dynamics of traumatic life experiences among children exposed to armed conflict and provide optimal responses, the policy advises.
and can work to mitigate the effects of trauma, according to the policy. The AAP recommends that child health professionals be prepared to diagnose and offer initial management for conditions associated with exposure to armed conflict as well as partner with community mental and behavioral health providers to establish collaborative care networks, when possible. Other AAP recommendations in the policy statement include that child health professionals:
- Be trained to provide “culturally effective care,” defined as “the delivery of care within the context of appropriate physician knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of all cultural distinctions, leading to optimal health outcomes.”
- Collaborate with local refugee resettlement groups and other public and private sector organizations, such as schools, health systems, and social services, to “facilitate the integration of children and families into their communities and to help families meet unmet needs.”
- Receive special preparation before working with refugees in camps or in conflict settings to become familiar with recognized standards for child protection and to better manage the physical, sexual, and psychological injuries caused by armed conflict.
The policy statement goes on to offer recommendations for systems that serve children exposed to armed conflict, advising that such systems should protect exposed children from abuse and exploitation, and offer access to physical, mental, behavioral, developmental, oral, and rehabilitation health services.
Finally, the AAP stressed its support of policies that advance the health, development, well-being, and rights of children affected by armed conflict and displacement. The AAP states that children should not be separated from their families during displacement and resettlement, emphasizing that “an intact family is the optimal environment for children’s health and well-being” and that “in the event of separation, family reunification should be prioritized.”
In addition, the AAP strongly advocates that children affected by armed conflict have access to educational opportunities, noting that pediatricians can act as a voice toward this end.
“There is strong evidence to suggest that education for boys and girls at all levels reduces most forms of political violence,” the authors wrote. “However, education currently receives less than 2% of all humanitarian funding, and girls are more likely than boys to be excluded from education. Because education is a priority for many children and essential for their well-being, child health providers may advocate for their educational rights and access, especially during humanitarian emergencies.”
SOURCE: Shenoda S et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Nov 5. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018.2586.
Pediatricians have a central role in addressing the impact to children caused by armed conflict, including diagnosing and managing health conditions resulting from exposure to associated violence, according to a new American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement.
The recommendation, published in Pediatrics, emphasizes the need for child health professionals to understand the prevalence of armed conflict and its pervasive effects on children and to respond both domestically and globally to the problem. The AAP defines armed conflict as any organized dispute that involves the use of weapons, violence, or force, such as international wars, civil wars, ethnic conflicts, and violence associated with gangs and drug trafficking. Children effected by armed conflict may include refugees forcibly displaced from their countries, unaccompanied immigrant children, and former child combatants, known as child soldiers.
The policy details the various health effects triggered by armed conflict, including physical, mental, developmental, and behavioral health conditions in children as well as indirect effects through deprivation and toxic stress. Children affected by armed conflict, for example, are at increased risk for PTSD, depression, anxiety, and behavioral and psychosomatic problems, which can continue well into adulthood, according to the policy statement.
To address these effects, pediatricians should receive training on trauma-informed care that enables them to recognize the dynamics of traumatic life experiences among children exposed to armed conflict and provide optimal responses, the policy advises.
and can work to mitigate the effects of trauma, according to the policy. The AAP recommends that child health professionals be prepared to diagnose and offer initial management for conditions associated with exposure to armed conflict as well as partner with community mental and behavioral health providers to establish collaborative care networks, when possible. Other AAP recommendations in the policy statement include that child health professionals:
- Be trained to provide “culturally effective care,” defined as “the delivery of care within the context of appropriate physician knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of all cultural distinctions, leading to optimal health outcomes.”
- Collaborate with local refugee resettlement groups and other public and private sector organizations, such as schools, health systems, and social services, to “facilitate the integration of children and families into their communities and to help families meet unmet needs.”
- Receive special preparation before working with refugees in camps or in conflict settings to become familiar with recognized standards for child protection and to better manage the physical, sexual, and psychological injuries caused by armed conflict.
The policy statement goes on to offer recommendations for systems that serve children exposed to armed conflict, advising that such systems should protect exposed children from abuse and exploitation, and offer access to physical, mental, behavioral, developmental, oral, and rehabilitation health services.
Finally, the AAP stressed its support of policies that advance the health, development, well-being, and rights of children affected by armed conflict and displacement. The AAP states that children should not be separated from their families during displacement and resettlement, emphasizing that “an intact family is the optimal environment for children’s health and well-being” and that “in the event of separation, family reunification should be prioritized.”
In addition, the AAP strongly advocates that children affected by armed conflict have access to educational opportunities, noting that pediatricians can act as a voice toward this end.
“There is strong evidence to suggest that education for boys and girls at all levels reduces most forms of political violence,” the authors wrote. “However, education currently receives less than 2% of all humanitarian funding, and girls are more likely than boys to be excluded from education. Because education is a priority for many children and essential for their well-being, child health providers may advocate for their educational rights and access, especially during humanitarian emergencies.”
SOURCE: Shenoda S et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Nov 5. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018.2586.
FROM PEDIATRICS
How Long Should Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Last After Stroke or TIA?
A 21-day period could maximize the therapy’s benefits and minimize the risk of major hemorrhage.
MONTREAL—The optimal length for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with mild stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) is 21 days, according to a prespecified analysis of data from the Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT) trial that was presented at the 11th World Stroke Congress. This duration of combined treatment maximizes protection against major ischemic events while minimizing the extra risk of a major hemorrhage, the researchers said.
Clopidogrel Plus Aspirin or Aspirin Alone
The POINT trial randomized 4,881 patients with a recent mild stroke or TIA and without atrial fibrillation to treatment with either clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone for 90 days. Compared with aspirin alone, DAPT decreased the incidence of a major ischemic event by 25% and more than doubled the rate of major hemorrhage.
The new prespecified analysis looked at outcomes on a weekly basis during 90 days of treatment. During the first 21 days, the rate of major hemorrhage events was 5.6% among those patients on aspirin alone and 3.6% among those on DAPT. Thus, DAPT was associated with a statistically significant 35% decrease in these adverse outcomes, said Jordan J. Elm, PhD, Associate Professor of Biostatistics at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. During the subsequent 69 days of treatment, the incidence of major ischemic events was approximately 1% in both arms of the study, showing that after three weeks, the incremental benefit of DAPT disappeared, said Dr. Elm.
In contrast, the doubled rate of major hemorrhages (which mostly were reversible gastrointestinal bleeds) with DAPT, compared with aspirin alone, occurred at a relatively uniform rate throughout the 90 days of treatment. This suggests that limiting DAPT to 21 days could prevent many of the excess hemorrhages, maximize benefit, and reduce risk, said Dr. Elm. The findings of the Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events (CHANCE) trial confirmed the efficacy of 21 days of DAPT following a minor stroke or TIA.
Although the new finding from the POINT study resulted from a secondary analysis, it should be taken into account when writing treatment guidelines, said Dr. Elm. “This is an important analysis that is not just hypothesis-generating.”
Early Treatment
Another finding from the new analysis was that many major ischemic events, hence many of the events prevented by DAPT, occurred during the first two days following the index event. The POINT investigators were able to observe this finding because they enrolled patients and started treatment within 12 hours of the qualifying events.
“It is better to start treatment early,” said Dr. Elm. Major ischemic events continued to accumulate during Days 3 through 21, suggesting that patients could still benefit from DAPT if treatment did not start until 24 or 48 hours after the index event.
—Mitchel L. Zoler
Johnston SC, Easton JD, Farrant M, et al. Clopidogrel and aspirin in acute ischemic stroke and high-risk TIA. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(3):215-225.
Tsivgoulis G, Safouris A, Kim DE, Alexandrov AV. Recent advances in primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic stroke. J Stroke. 2018;20(2):145-166.
Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhao X, et al. Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(1):11-19.
A 21-day period could maximize the therapy’s benefits and minimize the risk of major hemorrhage.
A 21-day period could maximize the therapy’s benefits and minimize the risk of major hemorrhage.
MONTREAL—The optimal length for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with mild stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) is 21 days, according to a prespecified analysis of data from the Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT) trial that was presented at the 11th World Stroke Congress. This duration of combined treatment maximizes protection against major ischemic events while minimizing the extra risk of a major hemorrhage, the researchers said.
Clopidogrel Plus Aspirin or Aspirin Alone
The POINT trial randomized 4,881 patients with a recent mild stroke or TIA and without atrial fibrillation to treatment with either clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone for 90 days. Compared with aspirin alone, DAPT decreased the incidence of a major ischemic event by 25% and more than doubled the rate of major hemorrhage.
The new prespecified analysis looked at outcomes on a weekly basis during 90 days of treatment. During the first 21 days, the rate of major hemorrhage events was 5.6% among those patients on aspirin alone and 3.6% among those on DAPT. Thus, DAPT was associated with a statistically significant 35% decrease in these adverse outcomes, said Jordan J. Elm, PhD, Associate Professor of Biostatistics at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. During the subsequent 69 days of treatment, the incidence of major ischemic events was approximately 1% in both arms of the study, showing that after three weeks, the incremental benefit of DAPT disappeared, said Dr. Elm.
In contrast, the doubled rate of major hemorrhages (which mostly were reversible gastrointestinal bleeds) with DAPT, compared with aspirin alone, occurred at a relatively uniform rate throughout the 90 days of treatment. This suggests that limiting DAPT to 21 days could prevent many of the excess hemorrhages, maximize benefit, and reduce risk, said Dr. Elm. The findings of the Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events (CHANCE) trial confirmed the efficacy of 21 days of DAPT following a minor stroke or TIA.
Although the new finding from the POINT study resulted from a secondary analysis, it should be taken into account when writing treatment guidelines, said Dr. Elm. “This is an important analysis that is not just hypothesis-generating.”
Early Treatment
Another finding from the new analysis was that many major ischemic events, hence many of the events prevented by DAPT, occurred during the first two days following the index event. The POINT investigators were able to observe this finding because they enrolled patients and started treatment within 12 hours of the qualifying events.
“It is better to start treatment early,” said Dr. Elm. Major ischemic events continued to accumulate during Days 3 through 21, suggesting that patients could still benefit from DAPT if treatment did not start until 24 or 48 hours after the index event.
—Mitchel L. Zoler
Johnston SC, Easton JD, Farrant M, et al. Clopidogrel and aspirin in acute ischemic stroke and high-risk TIA. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(3):215-225.
Tsivgoulis G, Safouris A, Kim DE, Alexandrov AV. Recent advances in primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic stroke. J Stroke. 2018;20(2):145-166.
Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhao X, et al. Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(1):11-19.
MONTREAL—The optimal length for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with mild stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) is 21 days, according to a prespecified analysis of data from the Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT) trial that was presented at the 11th World Stroke Congress. This duration of combined treatment maximizes protection against major ischemic events while minimizing the extra risk of a major hemorrhage, the researchers said.
Clopidogrel Plus Aspirin or Aspirin Alone
The POINT trial randomized 4,881 patients with a recent mild stroke or TIA and without atrial fibrillation to treatment with either clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone for 90 days. Compared with aspirin alone, DAPT decreased the incidence of a major ischemic event by 25% and more than doubled the rate of major hemorrhage.
The new prespecified analysis looked at outcomes on a weekly basis during 90 days of treatment. During the first 21 days, the rate of major hemorrhage events was 5.6% among those patients on aspirin alone and 3.6% among those on DAPT. Thus, DAPT was associated with a statistically significant 35% decrease in these adverse outcomes, said Jordan J. Elm, PhD, Associate Professor of Biostatistics at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. During the subsequent 69 days of treatment, the incidence of major ischemic events was approximately 1% in both arms of the study, showing that after three weeks, the incremental benefit of DAPT disappeared, said Dr. Elm.
In contrast, the doubled rate of major hemorrhages (which mostly were reversible gastrointestinal bleeds) with DAPT, compared with aspirin alone, occurred at a relatively uniform rate throughout the 90 days of treatment. This suggests that limiting DAPT to 21 days could prevent many of the excess hemorrhages, maximize benefit, and reduce risk, said Dr. Elm. The findings of the Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events (CHANCE) trial confirmed the efficacy of 21 days of DAPT following a minor stroke or TIA.
Although the new finding from the POINT study resulted from a secondary analysis, it should be taken into account when writing treatment guidelines, said Dr. Elm. “This is an important analysis that is not just hypothesis-generating.”
Early Treatment
Another finding from the new analysis was that many major ischemic events, hence many of the events prevented by DAPT, occurred during the first two days following the index event. The POINT investigators were able to observe this finding because they enrolled patients and started treatment within 12 hours of the qualifying events.
“It is better to start treatment early,” said Dr. Elm. Major ischemic events continued to accumulate during Days 3 through 21, suggesting that patients could still benefit from DAPT if treatment did not start until 24 or 48 hours after the index event.
—Mitchel L. Zoler
Johnston SC, Easton JD, Farrant M, et al. Clopidogrel and aspirin in acute ischemic stroke and high-risk TIA. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(3):215-225.
Tsivgoulis G, Safouris A, Kim DE, Alexandrov AV. Recent advances in primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic stroke. J Stroke. 2018;20(2):145-166.
Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhao X, et al. Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(1):11-19.
Comorbidities are important in psoriasis care
LAS VEGAS – Pay attention to comorbidities in your psoriasis patients because there may not be anyone else doing so.
“Many of our patients don’t have primary care physicians; many are untreated for psoriasis. They come to a clinical trial to get treated – some of them may not have insurance – so it is important for us to watch for these comorbidities,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.
Yet, that does not seem to be happening consistently, according to Dr. Duffin, of the department of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. One in five dermatologists admitted to never screening or referring their psoriasis patients for management of cardiovascular risks in a 2015 survey (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.07.029).
Often patients at the start of biologic therapy are counseled about the risk for developing tuberculosis, yet the lifetime risk for doing so in the United States is 0.3%. Similarly, patients are often counseled on the risk for developing lymphoma, even though the excess risk for developing lymphoma that can be attributed to psoriasis treatment is 7.9 per 100,000 psoriasis patients per year. That screening seems to be driven by warnings issued in direct-to-consumer advertising, Dr. Duffin suggested.
“Although psoriasis patients have an increased relative risk of lymphoma, the absolute risk attributable to psoriasis is low,” Dr. Duffin pointed out.
Some of the comorbidities she advised dermatologists to watch for are described below.
Psoriatic arthritis
Psoriatic arthritis is the most important psoriasis comorbidity, Dr. Duffin said. Between 20% and 30% of psoriasis patients will develop psoriatic arthritis.
In a study of 1,511 patients in 48 centers in Germany, 21% of psoriasis patients were diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis and of those, more than 95% had active arthritis and 53% had five or more affected joints (Br J Dermatol. 2009;160[5]:1040-7).
The GRAPPA app is an easy, free screening tool for psoriatic arthritis; patients who score 3 or more out of 5 items on the psoriasis epidemiology screening tool (PEST) are deemed positive for psoriatic arthritis, Dr. Duffin noted.
Cardiovascular disease
Psoriasis patients are at increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease, Dr. Duffin said. In fact, CV risk from severe psoriasis is similar to the risk conferred by diabetes.
She added that there is epidemiologic evidence for CV risk modification with several of the biologics approved for psoriasis.
Hypertension
Hypertension is prevalent and more severe in psoriasis patients, Dr. Duffin said, citing a 2011 case-control study of electronic medical records at the University of California, Davis. Psoriasis patients with hypertension were 5 times more likely than patients without psoriasis to be on one antihypertensive medication, 9.5 times more likely to be on two, and almost 20 times more likely to be on four antihypertensive medications (PLoS One. 2011 Mar 29;6[3]:e18227. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018227).
Importantly, few primary care physicians and cardiologists are aware of the increased risk for hypertension in psoriasis patients.
Less than half (45%) of primary care physicians and 57% of cardiologists reported they were aware that psoriasis was associated with worse cardiovascular outcome, and only 43% of physicians reported screening psoriasis patients for hypertension starting at age 20 years, according to a 2012 survey of 251 physicians (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Sep;67[3]:357-62).
Dr. Duffin called on dermatologists to ensure that the primary care physicians they work with understand these increased risks.
“Commit to including a comment in consultation letters or letters back to primary care physicians that talks about the cardiovascular risks of the disease,” she said.
Dr. Duffin reported that she is a consultant and has received grant or contracted research support for many companies that manufacture dermatologic therapies.
SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
LAS VEGAS – Pay attention to comorbidities in your psoriasis patients because there may not be anyone else doing so.
“Many of our patients don’t have primary care physicians; many are untreated for psoriasis. They come to a clinical trial to get treated – some of them may not have insurance – so it is important for us to watch for these comorbidities,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.
Yet, that does not seem to be happening consistently, according to Dr. Duffin, of the department of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. One in five dermatologists admitted to never screening or referring their psoriasis patients for management of cardiovascular risks in a 2015 survey (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.07.029).
Often patients at the start of biologic therapy are counseled about the risk for developing tuberculosis, yet the lifetime risk for doing so in the United States is 0.3%. Similarly, patients are often counseled on the risk for developing lymphoma, even though the excess risk for developing lymphoma that can be attributed to psoriasis treatment is 7.9 per 100,000 psoriasis patients per year. That screening seems to be driven by warnings issued in direct-to-consumer advertising, Dr. Duffin suggested.
“Although psoriasis patients have an increased relative risk of lymphoma, the absolute risk attributable to psoriasis is low,” Dr. Duffin pointed out.
Some of the comorbidities she advised dermatologists to watch for are described below.
Psoriatic arthritis
Psoriatic arthritis is the most important psoriasis comorbidity, Dr. Duffin said. Between 20% and 30% of psoriasis patients will develop psoriatic arthritis.
In a study of 1,511 patients in 48 centers in Germany, 21% of psoriasis patients were diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis and of those, more than 95% had active arthritis and 53% had five or more affected joints (Br J Dermatol. 2009;160[5]:1040-7).
The GRAPPA app is an easy, free screening tool for psoriatic arthritis; patients who score 3 or more out of 5 items on the psoriasis epidemiology screening tool (PEST) are deemed positive for psoriatic arthritis, Dr. Duffin noted.
Cardiovascular disease
Psoriasis patients are at increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease, Dr. Duffin said. In fact, CV risk from severe psoriasis is similar to the risk conferred by diabetes.
She added that there is epidemiologic evidence for CV risk modification with several of the biologics approved for psoriasis.
Hypertension
Hypertension is prevalent and more severe in psoriasis patients, Dr. Duffin said, citing a 2011 case-control study of electronic medical records at the University of California, Davis. Psoriasis patients with hypertension were 5 times more likely than patients without psoriasis to be on one antihypertensive medication, 9.5 times more likely to be on two, and almost 20 times more likely to be on four antihypertensive medications (PLoS One. 2011 Mar 29;6[3]:e18227. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018227).
Importantly, few primary care physicians and cardiologists are aware of the increased risk for hypertension in psoriasis patients.
Less than half (45%) of primary care physicians and 57% of cardiologists reported they were aware that psoriasis was associated with worse cardiovascular outcome, and only 43% of physicians reported screening psoriasis patients for hypertension starting at age 20 years, according to a 2012 survey of 251 physicians (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Sep;67[3]:357-62).
Dr. Duffin called on dermatologists to ensure that the primary care physicians they work with understand these increased risks.
“Commit to including a comment in consultation letters or letters back to primary care physicians that talks about the cardiovascular risks of the disease,” she said.
Dr. Duffin reported that she is a consultant and has received grant or contracted research support for many companies that manufacture dermatologic therapies.
SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
LAS VEGAS – Pay attention to comorbidities in your psoriasis patients because there may not be anyone else doing so.
“Many of our patients don’t have primary care physicians; many are untreated for psoriasis. They come to a clinical trial to get treated – some of them may not have insurance – so it is important for us to watch for these comorbidities,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.
Yet, that does not seem to be happening consistently, according to Dr. Duffin, of the department of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. One in five dermatologists admitted to never screening or referring their psoriasis patients for management of cardiovascular risks in a 2015 survey (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.07.029).
Often patients at the start of biologic therapy are counseled about the risk for developing tuberculosis, yet the lifetime risk for doing so in the United States is 0.3%. Similarly, patients are often counseled on the risk for developing lymphoma, even though the excess risk for developing lymphoma that can be attributed to psoriasis treatment is 7.9 per 100,000 psoriasis patients per year. That screening seems to be driven by warnings issued in direct-to-consumer advertising, Dr. Duffin suggested.
“Although psoriasis patients have an increased relative risk of lymphoma, the absolute risk attributable to psoriasis is low,” Dr. Duffin pointed out.
Some of the comorbidities she advised dermatologists to watch for are described below.
Psoriatic arthritis
Psoriatic arthritis is the most important psoriasis comorbidity, Dr. Duffin said. Between 20% and 30% of psoriasis patients will develop psoriatic arthritis.
In a study of 1,511 patients in 48 centers in Germany, 21% of psoriasis patients were diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis and of those, more than 95% had active arthritis and 53% had five or more affected joints (Br J Dermatol. 2009;160[5]:1040-7).
The GRAPPA app is an easy, free screening tool for psoriatic arthritis; patients who score 3 or more out of 5 items on the psoriasis epidemiology screening tool (PEST) are deemed positive for psoriatic arthritis, Dr. Duffin noted.
Cardiovascular disease
Psoriasis patients are at increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease, Dr. Duffin said. In fact, CV risk from severe psoriasis is similar to the risk conferred by diabetes.
She added that there is epidemiologic evidence for CV risk modification with several of the biologics approved for psoriasis.
Hypertension
Hypertension is prevalent and more severe in psoriasis patients, Dr. Duffin said, citing a 2011 case-control study of electronic medical records at the University of California, Davis. Psoriasis patients with hypertension were 5 times more likely than patients without psoriasis to be on one antihypertensive medication, 9.5 times more likely to be on two, and almost 20 times more likely to be on four antihypertensive medications (PLoS One. 2011 Mar 29;6[3]:e18227. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018227).
Importantly, few primary care physicians and cardiologists are aware of the increased risk for hypertension in psoriasis patients.
Less than half (45%) of primary care physicians and 57% of cardiologists reported they were aware that psoriasis was associated with worse cardiovascular outcome, and only 43% of physicians reported screening psoriasis patients for hypertension starting at age 20 years, according to a 2012 survey of 251 physicians (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Sep;67[3]:357-62).
Dr. Duffin called on dermatologists to ensure that the primary care physicians they work with understand these increased risks.
“Commit to including a comment in consultation letters or letters back to primary care physicians that talks about the cardiovascular risks of the disease,” she said.
Dr. Duffin reported that she is a consultant and has received grant or contracted research support for many companies that manufacture dermatologic therapies.
SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
REPORTING FROM SDEF LAS VEGAS DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR
Samuel Shem: House of God
Newsweek named the House of God the second best satirical piece of fiction of all time behind Don Quixote. In this conversation, Shem tells me about his motivation for the House of God and reveals that there will be a sequel in 2019 on the current state of medicine.
Newsweek named the House of God the second best satirical piece of fiction of all time behind Don Quixote. In this conversation, Shem tells me about his motivation for the House of God and reveals that there will be a sequel in 2019 on the current state of medicine.
Newsweek named the House of God the second best satirical piece of fiction of all time behind Don Quixote. In this conversation, Shem tells me about his motivation for the House of God and reveals that there will be a sequel in 2019 on the current state of medicine.
Modeling Favors Immediate AED Treatment After an Unprovoked First Seizure
Factoring in quality of life, seizure risk, and side effects, a model prefers immediate over delayed treatment.
Immediate treatment of a first unprovoked seizure may be preferable to delayed treatment over a wide range of patients, including those who are at low risk of recurrent seizures, results of a decision analysis suggest.
Taking into account quality of life, seizure risk, and antiepileptic drug (AED) side effects, a model favored treatment of a patient with a single unprovoked seizure who did not meet the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) definition of epilepsy, investigators reported.
The model also favored treatment of patients who did meet ILAE criteria, namely, a 10-year recurrence risk greater than 60% in a patient with a single unprovoked seizure, according to the analysis, which was published in the October 9 issue of Neurology.
Together, these findings suggest that the current ILAE epilepsy definition is “too simplistic” for deciding whether to start or withhold AED treatment after a first unprovoked seizure, said M. Brandon Westover, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his coauthors.
“A more precise and patient-personalized definition of epilepsy should encompass not only seizure recurrence probability but also a multitude of other risks and benefits associated with AED treatment,” they said.
Weighing Risks and Benefits
To determine which patients with a first unprovoked seizure might benefit from immediate AED treatment, Dr. Westover and his colleagues used a decision model with measures constructed from retrospective clinical trial data.
The goal of the simulation was to determine which treatment strategy—immediate or delayed AED treatment—would maximize the patient’s expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Toward that end, Dr. Westover and his coinvestigators considered three base cases, which represented various degrees of seizure-recurrence risk.
The first case was a 30-year-old man with no risk factors for recurrent seizure other than having had a first seizure. In that case, immediate and deferred AED treatment resulted in 19.04 and 18.65 QALYs, respectively.
“In dollar values, using the conservative approximation of $50,000/QALY gained, this difference in treatment outcomes would amount to $19,500 gained per individual,” Dr. Westover and his coauthors wrote in their report.
The second case was a 30-year-old woman who presented with a first unprovoked seizure and had positive MRI results that establish a high risk of recurrence. As expected, because of the high recurrence risk, this scenario also favored immediate treatment, with 15.23 and 14.75 QALYs, respectively, for the immediate and deferred strategies.
The final case was a wheelchair-bound 60-year-old woman with a first unprovoked seizure and high risk of recurrence, but also a high risk of AED adverse effects and a smaller expected quality of life reduction from further seizures. In this scenario, in which treatment might be “intuitively discouraged” because of the AED side-effect risk, the cohort simulation favored deferred AED treatment by a small margin, the investigators said.
“A high baseline risk for recurrent seizures does not by itself always favor immediate AED treatment,” they said.
Findings May Shift Discussions About Therapy
The conclusion of this decision analysis by Dr. Westover and colleagues is “likely correct” that early treatment of a first unprovoked seizure could be favorable in a wide range of clinical scenarios, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial.
The decision analysis is based on a reasonable, though not comprehensive, set of parameters to simulate base cases representative of common first-ever seizure clinical scenarios, said editorialists Claire S. Jacobs, MD, PhD, and Jong Woo Lee, MD, PhD, both with the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Potentially the most controversial scenario addressed in the decision model, they noted, is the patient with low seizure recurrence risk but substantial quality of life decline upon recurrence. While that patient would not meet the commonly accepted 60% recurrence risk threshold that would indicate that treatment is warranted, this model favors immediate treatment because of the potentially disruptive effect of recurrence.
This study does not address important issues such as the cost of medication and patient preferences, they pointed out, and furthermore, QALYs can be difficult to integrate into clinical decision making.
Nonetheless, the findings are worth considering in clinical practice, the authors suggested. “At the very least, this study should, however subtly, shift the starting point of discussion with the patient toward a default of immediate, rather than deferred, treatment after a first unprovoked seizure and apparent absence of disease,” said Drs. Jacob and Lee.
The study was supported by NINDS.
—Andrew D. Bowser
Suggested Reading
Bao EL, Chao LY, Ni P, et al. Antiepileptic drug treatment after an unprovoked first seizure: a decision analysis. Neurology. 2018;91(15):e1429-e1439.
Jacobs CS, Lee JW. Immediate vs delayed treatment of first unprovoked seizure: to treat, or not to treat? Neurology. 2018;91(15):684-685.
Factoring in quality of life, seizure risk, and side effects, a model prefers immediate over delayed treatment.
Factoring in quality of life, seizure risk, and side effects, a model prefers immediate over delayed treatment.
Immediate treatment of a first unprovoked seizure may be preferable to delayed treatment over a wide range of patients, including those who are at low risk of recurrent seizures, results of a decision analysis suggest.
Taking into account quality of life, seizure risk, and antiepileptic drug (AED) side effects, a model favored treatment of a patient with a single unprovoked seizure who did not meet the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) definition of epilepsy, investigators reported.
The model also favored treatment of patients who did meet ILAE criteria, namely, a 10-year recurrence risk greater than 60% in a patient with a single unprovoked seizure, according to the analysis, which was published in the October 9 issue of Neurology.
Together, these findings suggest that the current ILAE epilepsy definition is “too simplistic” for deciding whether to start or withhold AED treatment after a first unprovoked seizure, said M. Brandon Westover, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his coauthors.
“A more precise and patient-personalized definition of epilepsy should encompass not only seizure recurrence probability but also a multitude of other risks and benefits associated with AED treatment,” they said.
Weighing Risks and Benefits
To determine which patients with a first unprovoked seizure might benefit from immediate AED treatment, Dr. Westover and his colleagues used a decision model with measures constructed from retrospective clinical trial data.
The goal of the simulation was to determine which treatment strategy—immediate or delayed AED treatment—would maximize the patient’s expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Toward that end, Dr. Westover and his coinvestigators considered three base cases, which represented various degrees of seizure-recurrence risk.
The first case was a 30-year-old man with no risk factors for recurrent seizure other than having had a first seizure. In that case, immediate and deferred AED treatment resulted in 19.04 and 18.65 QALYs, respectively.
“In dollar values, using the conservative approximation of $50,000/QALY gained, this difference in treatment outcomes would amount to $19,500 gained per individual,” Dr. Westover and his coauthors wrote in their report.
The second case was a 30-year-old woman who presented with a first unprovoked seizure and had positive MRI results that establish a high risk of recurrence. As expected, because of the high recurrence risk, this scenario also favored immediate treatment, with 15.23 and 14.75 QALYs, respectively, for the immediate and deferred strategies.
The final case was a wheelchair-bound 60-year-old woman with a first unprovoked seizure and high risk of recurrence, but also a high risk of AED adverse effects and a smaller expected quality of life reduction from further seizures. In this scenario, in which treatment might be “intuitively discouraged” because of the AED side-effect risk, the cohort simulation favored deferred AED treatment by a small margin, the investigators said.
“A high baseline risk for recurrent seizures does not by itself always favor immediate AED treatment,” they said.
Findings May Shift Discussions About Therapy
The conclusion of this decision analysis by Dr. Westover and colleagues is “likely correct” that early treatment of a first unprovoked seizure could be favorable in a wide range of clinical scenarios, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial.
The decision analysis is based on a reasonable, though not comprehensive, set of parameters to simulate base cases representative of common first-ever seizure clinical scenarios, said editorialists Claire S. Jacobs, MD, PhD, and Jong Woo Lee, MD, PhD, both with the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Potentially the most controversial scenario addressed in the decision model, they noted, is the patient with low seizure recurrence risk but substantial quality of life decline upon recurrence. While that patient would not meet the commonly accepted 60% recurrence risk threshold that would indicate that treatment is warranted, this model favors immediate treatment because of the potentially disruptive effect of recurrence.
This study does not address important issues such as the cost of medication and patient preferences, they pointed out, and furthermore, QALYs can be difficult to integrate into clinical decision making.
Nonetheless, the findings are worth considering in clinical practice, the authors suggested. “At the very least, this study should, however subtly, shift the starting point of discussion with the patient toward a default of immediate, rather than deferred, treatment after a first unprovoked seizure and apparent absence of disease,” said Drs. Jacob and Lee.
The study was supported by NINDS.
—Andrew D. Bowser
Suggested Reading
Bao EL, Chao LY, Ni P, et al. Antiepileptic drug treatment after an unprovoked first seizure: a decision analysis. Neurology. 2018;91(15):e1429-e1439.
Jacobs CS, Lee JW. Immediate vs delayed treatment of first unprovoked seizure: to treat, or not to treat? Neurology. 2018;91(15):684-685.
Immediate treatment of a first unprovoked seizure may be preferable to delayed treatment over a wide range of patients, including those who are at low risk of recurrent seizures, results of a decision analysis suggest.
Taking into account quality of life, seizure risk, and antiepileptic drug (AED) side effects, a model favored treatment of a patient with a single unprovoked seizure who did not meet the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) definition of epilepsy, investigators reported.
The model also favored treatment of patients who did meet ILAE criteria, namely, a 10-year recurrence risk greater than 60% in a patient with a single unprovoked seizure, according to the analysis, which was published in the October 9 issue of Neurology.
Together, these findings suggest that the current ILAE epilepsy definition is “too simplistic” for deciding whether to start or withhold AED treatment after a first unprovoked seizure, said M. Brandon Westover, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his coauthors.
“A more precise and patient-personalized definition of epilepsy should encompass not only seizure recurrence probability but also a multitude of other risks and benefits associated with AED treatment,” they said.
Weighing Risks and Benefits
To determine which patients with a first unprovoked seizure might benefit from immediate AED treatment, Dr. Westover and his colleagues used a decision model with measures constructed from retrospective clinical trial data.
The goal of the simulation was to determine which treatment strategy—immediate or delayed AED treatment—would maximize the patient’s expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Toward that end, Dr. Westover and his coinvestigators considered three base cases, which represented various degrees of seizure-recurrence risk.
The first case was a 30-year-old man with no risk factors for recurrent seizure other than having had a first seizure. In that case, immediate and deferred AED treatment resulted in 19.04 and 18.65 QALYs, respectively.
“In dollar values, using the conservative approximation of $50,000/QALY gained, this difference in treatment outcomes would amount to $19,500 gained per individual,” Dr. Westover and his coauthors wrote in their report.
The second case was a 30-year-old woman who presented with a first unprovoked seizure and had positive MRI results that establish a high risk of recurrence. As expected, because of the high recurrence risk, this scenario also favored immediate treatment, with 15.23 and 14.75 QALYs, respectively, for the immediate and deferred strategies.
The final case was a wheelchair-bound 60-year-old woman with a first unprovoked seizure and high risk of recurrence, but also a high risk of AED adverse effects and a smaller expected quality of life reduction from further seizures. In this scenario, in which treatment might be “intuitively discouraged” because of the AED side-effect risk, the cohort simulation favored deferred AED treatment by a small margin, the investigators said.
“A high baseline risk for recurrent seizures does not by itself always favor immediate AED treatment,” they said.
Findings May Shift Discussions About Therapy
The conclusion of this decision analysis by Dr. Westover and colleagues is “likely correct” that early treatment of a first unprovoked seizure could be favorable in a wide range of clinical scenarios, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial.
The decision analysis is based on a reasonable, though not comprehensive, set of parameters to simulate base cases representative of common first-ever seizure clinical scenarios, said editorialists Claire S. Jacobs, MD, PhD, and Jong Woo Lee, MD, PhD, both with the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Potentially the most controversial scenario addressed in the decision model, they noted, is the patient with low seizure recurrence risk but substantial quality of life decline upon recurrence. While that patient would not meet the commonly accepted 60% recurrence risk threshold that would indicate that treatment is warranted, this model favors immediate treatment because of the potentially disruptive effect of recurrence.
This study does not address important issues such as the cost of medication and patient preferences, they pointed out, and furthermore, QALYs can be difficult to integrate into clinical decision making.
Nonetheless, the findings are worth considering in clinical practice, the authors suggested. “At the very least, this study should, however subtly, shift the starting point of discussion with the patient toward a default of immediate, rather than deferred, treatment after a first unprovoked seizure and apparent absence of disease,” said Drs. Jacob and Lee.
The study was supported by NINDS.
—Andrew D. Bowser
Suggested Reading
Bao EL, Chao LY, Ni P, et al. Antiepileptic drug treatment after an unprovoked first seizure: a decision analysis. Neurology. 2018;91(15):e1429-e1439.
Jacobs CS, Lee JW. Immediate vs delayed treatment of first unprovoked seizure: to treat, or not to treat? Neurology. 2018;91(15):684-685.
Researchers Develop Guidelines for Evaluating Cognitive and Behavioral Syndromes in Adults
A care partner almost always should be involved in the evaluation, the guidelines advise.
CHICAGO—An Alzheimer’s Association workgroup has developed 20 recommendations for the clinical evaluation of patients with cognitive or behavioral complaints. All middle-aged or older individuals who report or whose care partner or clinician reports cognitive, behavioral, or functional changes should undergo a timely evaluation, the guidelines advise. A care partner almost always should be involved the evaluation, according to the guidelines.
The recommendations cover the recognition and evaluation of symptoms, selection of brain imaging and other tests, and communication with and support of affected individuals and their caregivers.
Alireza Atri, MD, PhD, cochair of the workgroup, presented the recommendations at AAIC 2018. The authors plan to finalize and publish the guidelines in 2018.
“Until now, we have not had highly specific and multispecialty US national guidelines that can inform the diagnostic process across all care settings and that provide standards meant to improve patient autonomy, care, and outcomes,” said Dr. Atri, Director of the Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City, Arizona, and Lecturer in Neurology at the Center for Brain/Mind Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Cognitive Behavioral Syndromes
The clinical practice guidelines recognize a broad category of cognitive behavioral syndromes marked by memory and thinking symptoms as well as changes in sleep, anxiety, personality, and relationships.
The Alzheimer’s Association in 2017 convened a Diagnostic Evaluation Clinical Practice Guideline workgroup to develop evidence-based guidelines. The group includes experts in medical, neuropsychologic, and nursing specialties. The members conducted a systematic review of the literature and made recommendations using a modified Delphi consensus process. They graded the recommendations as “A” (must be done; will improve outcomes in almost all cases), “B” (should be done), and “C” (may be done).
The recommendations emphasize obtaining a history from not only the patient, but also from someone who knows the patient well to establish the presence and characteristics of any substantial changes and to categorize the cognitive behavioral syndrome.
Other recommendations for evaluating patients with cognitive behavioral syndromes include the following:
- For patients with atypical or rapidly progressive cognitive behavioral symptoms, the clinician should expedite an evaluation and strongly consider referral to a specialist. (Level A)
- The evaluation process should use tiers of assessments and tests based on a patient’s presentation, risk factors, and profile. (Level A)
- The clinician should involve an informant to obtain reliable information about changes in cognition, activities of daily living, mood and other neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sensory and motor function. Use of structured instruments for assessing these domains is helpful. (Level A)
- Clinicians should use validated tools to assess cognition. (Level A)
- When office-based cognitive assessment is not sufficiently informative (eg, when interpretation of results is uncertain due to a complex clinical profile or confounding demographic characteristics), neuropsychologic evaluation is recommended. (Level A)
- The clinician should obtain MRI as a first-tier approach to aid in establishing etiology. If MRI is not available or is contraindicated, CT should be obtained. (Level B)
- If etiology remains uncertain after interpretation of structural imaging, a dementia specialist can obtain molecular imaging with FDG-PET to improve diagnostic accuracy. (Level B)
- In cases with continued diagnostic uncertainty, a dementia specialist can obtain CSF according to appropriate use criteria for analysis of aβ42 amyloid and tau/p-tau profiles to evaluate for Alzheimer’s disease pathology. (Level C)
- If diagnostic uncertainty remains after obtaining structural imaging and FDG-PET, and CSF aβ and tau/p-tau profiles are unavailable or uninterpretable, the dementia specialist can obtain an amyloid PET scan according to the appropriate use criteria. (Level C)
- In a patient with an established cognitive behavioral syndrome and a likely autosomal dominant family history, the dementia specialist should consider whether genetic testing is warranted. A genetic counselor should be involved throughout the process. (Level A)
A Tool for Medical Professionals
According to the workgroup, a timely and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias increases patient autonomy when he or she is most able to participate in goals of treatment and life and care decisions. It also allows for early intervention to maximize support opportunities and treatment outcomes.
“These new guidelines will provide an important new tool for medical professionals to more accurately diagnose Alzheimer’s [disease] and other dementias. As a result, people will get the right care and appropriate treatments; families will get the right support and be able to plan for the future,” said James Hendrix, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association Director of Global Science Initiatives and a member of the workgroup. “Too often, cognitive and behavioral symptoms due to Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are unrecognized or attributed to something else.”
“The guidelines can empower patients, families, and clinicians to expect that symptoms will be evaluated in a patient-centered, structured, and collaborative manner,” Dr. Atri said. “In addition, they help to ensure that, regardless of the specific diagnosis, the results are communicated in a timely and compassionate way to help patients and families live the best lives possible.”
A care partner almost always should be involved in the evaluation, the guidelines advise.
A care partner almost always should be involved in the evaluation, the guidelines advise.
CHICAGO—An Alzheimer’s Association workgroup has developed 20 recommendations for the clinical evaluation of patients with cognitive or behavioral complaints. All middle-aged or older individuals who report or whose care partner or clinician reports cognitive, behavioral, or functional changes should undergo a timely evaluation, the guidelines advise. A care partner almost always should be involved the evaluation, according to the guidelines.
The recommendations cover the recognition and evaluation of symptoms, selection of brain imaging and other tests, and communication with and support of affected individuals and their caregivers.
Alireza Atri, MD, PhD, cochair of the workgroup, presented the recommendations at AAIC 2018. The authors plan to finalize and publish the guidelines in 2018.
“Until now, we have not had highly specific and multispecialty US national guidelines that can inform the diagnostic process across all care settings and that provide standards meant to improve patient autonomy, care, and outcomes,” said Dr. Atri, Director of the Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City, Arizona, and Lecturer in Neurology at the Center for Brain/Mind Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Cognitive Behavioral Syndromes
The clinical practice guidelines recognize a broad category of cognitive behavioral syndromes marked by memory and thinking symptoms as well as changes in sleep, anxiety, personality, and relationships.
The Alzheimer’s Association in 2017 convened a Diagnostic Evaluation Clinical Practice Guideline workgroup to develop evidence-based guidelines. The group includes experts in medical, neuropsychologic, and nursing specialties. The members conducted a systematic review of the literature and made recommendations using a modified Delphi consensus process. They graded the recommendations as “A” (must be done; will improve outcomes in almost all cases), “B” (should be done), and “C” (may be done).
The recommendations emphasize obtaining a history from not only the patient, but also from someone who knows the patient well to establish the presence and characteristics of any substantial changes and to categorize the cognitive behavioral syndrome.
Other recommendations for evaluating patients with cognitive behavioral syndromes include the following:
- For patients with atypical or rapidly progressive cognitive behavioral symptoms, the clinician should expedite an evaluation and strongly consider referral to a specialist. (Level A)
- The evaluation process should use tiers of assessments and tests based on a patient’s presentation, risk factors, and profile. (Level A)
- The clinician should involve an informant to obtain reliable information about changes in cognition, activities of daily living, mood and other neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sensory and motor function. Use of structured instruments for assessing these domains is helpful. (Level A)
- Clinicians should use validated tools to assess cognition. (Level A)
- When office-based cognitive assessment is not sufficiently informative (eg, when interpretation of results is uncertain due to a complex clinical profile or confounding demographic characteristics), neuropsychologic evaluation is recommended. (Level A)
- The clinician should obtain MRI as a first-tier approach to aid in establishing etiology. If MRI is not available or is contraindicated, CT should be obtained. (Level B)
- If etiology remains uncertain after interpretation of structural imaging, a dementia specialist can obtain molecular imaging with FDG-PET to improve diagnostic accuracy. (Level B)
- In cases with continued diagnostic uncertainty, a dementia specialist can obtain CSF according to appropriate use criteria for analysis of aβ42 amyloid and tau/p-tau profiles to evaluate for Alzheimer’s disease pathology. (Level C)
- If diagnostic uncertainty remains after obtaining structural imaging and FDG-PET, and CSF aβ and tau/p-tau profiles are unavailable or uninterpretable, the dementia specialist can obtain an amyloid PET scan according to the appropriate use criteria. (Level C)
- In a patient with an established cognitive behavioral syndrome and a likely autosomal dominant family history, the dementia specialist should consider whether genetic testing is warranted. A genetic counselor should be involved throughout the process. (Level A)
A Tool for Medical Professionals
According to the workgroup, a timely and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias increases patient autonomy when he or she is most able to participate in goals of treatment and life and care decisions. It also allows for early intervention to maximize support opportunities and treatment outcomes.
“These new guidelines will provide an important new tool for medical professionals to more accurately diagnose Alzheimer’s [disease] and other dementias. As a result, people will get the right care and appropriate treatments; families will get the right support and be able to plan for the future,” said James Hendrix, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association Director of Global Science Initiatives and a member of the workgroup. “Too often, cognitive and behavioral symptoms due to Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are unrecognized or attributed to something else.”
“The guidelines can empower patients, families, and clinicians to expect that symptoms will be evaluated in a patient-centered, structured, and collaborative manner,” Dr. Atri said. “In addition, they help to ensure that, regardless of the specific diagnosis, the results are communicated in a timely and compassionate way to help patients and families live the best lives possible.”
CHICAGO—An Alzheimer’s Association workgroup has developed 20 recommendations for the clinical evaluation of patients with cognitive or behavioral complaints. All middle-aged or older individuals who report or whose care partner or clinician reports cognitive, behavioral, or functional changes should undergo a timely evaluation, the guidelines advise. A care partner almost always should be involved the evaluation, according to the guidelines.
The recommendations cover the recognition and evaluation of symptoms, selection of brain imaging and other tests, and communication with and support of affected individuals and their caregivers.
Alireza Atri, MD, PhD, cochair of the workgroup, presented the recommendations at AAIC 2018. The authors plan to finalize and publish the guidelines in 2018.
“Until now, we have not had highly specific and multispecialty US national guidelines that can inform the diagnostic process across all care settings and that provide standards meant to improve patient autonomy, care, and outcomes,” said Dr. Atri, Director of the Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City, Arizona, and Lecturer in Neurology at the Center for Brain/Mind Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Cognitive Behavioral Syndromes
The clinical practice guidelines recognize a broad category of cognitive behavioral syndromes marked by memory and thinking symptoms as well as changes in sleep, anxiety, personality, and relationships.
The Alzheimer’s Association in 2017 convened a Diagnostic Evaluation Clinical Practice Guideline workgroup to develop evidence-based guidelines. The group includes experts in medical, neuropsychologic, and nursing specialties. The members conducted a systematic review of the literature and made recommendations using a modified Delphi consensus process. They graded the recommendations as “A” (must be done; will improve outcomes in almost all cases), “B” (should be done), and “C” (may be done).
The recommendations emphasize obtaining a history from not only the patient, but also from someone who knows the patient well to establish the presence and characteristics of any substantial changes and to categorize the cognitive behavioral syndrome.
Other recommendations for evaluating patients with cognitive behavioral syndromes include the following:
- For patients with atypical or rapidly progressive cognitive behavioral symptoms, the clinician should expedite an evaluation and strongly consider referral to a specialist. (Level A)
- The evaluation process should use tiers of assessments and tests based on a patient’s presentation, risk factors, and profile. (Level A)
- The clinician should involve an informant to obtain reliable information about changes in cognition, activities of daily living, mood and other neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sensory and motor function. Use of structured instruments for assessing these domains is helpful. (Level A)
- Clinicians should use validated tools to assess cognition. (Level A)
- When office-based cognitive assessment is not sufficiently informative (eg, when interpretation of results is uncertain due to a complex clinical profile or confounding demographic characteristics), neuropsychologic evaluation is recommended. (Level A)
- The clinician should obtain MRI as a first-tier approach to aid in establishing etiology. If MRI is not available or is contraindicated, CT should be obtained. (Level B)
- If etiology remains uncertain after interpretation of structural imaging, a dementia specialist can obtain molecular imaging with FDG-PET to improve diagnostic accuracy. (Level B)
- In cases with continued diagnostic uncertainty, a dementia specialist can obtain CSF according to appropriate use criteria for analysis of aβ42 amyloid and tau/p-tau profiles to evaluate for Alzheimer’s disease pathology. (Level C)
- If diagnostic uncertainty remains after obtaining structural imaging and FDG-PET, and CSF aβ and tau/p-tau profiles are unavailable or uninterpretable, the dementia specialist can obtain an amyloid PET scan according to the appropriate use criteria. (Level C)
- In a patient with an established cognitive behavioral syndrome and a likely autosomal dominant family history, the dementia specialist should consider whether genetic testing is warranted. A genetic counselor should be involved throughout the process. (Level A)
A Tool for Medical Professionals
According to the workgroup, a timely and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias increases patient autonomy when he or she is most able to participate in goals of treatment and life and care decisions. It also allows for early intervention to maximize support opportunities and treatment outcomes.
“These new guidelines will provide an important new tool for medical professionals to more accurately diagnose Alzheimer’s [disease] and other dementias. As a result, people will get the right care and appropriate treatments; families will get the right support and be able to plan for the future,” said James Hendrix, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association Director of Global Science Initiatives and a member of the workgroup. “Too often, cognitive and behavioral symptoms due to Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are unrecognized or attributed to something else.”
“The guidelines can empower patients, families, and clinicians to expect that symptoms will be evaluated in a patient-centered, structured, and collaborative manner,” Dr. Atri said. “In addition, they help to ensure that, regardless of the specific diagnosis, the results are communicated in a timely and compassionate way to help patients and families live the best lives possible.”