Neurology

Migraine is the second leading cause of years of life lived with a disability globally.¹ It affects people of all ages, but particularly during the years associated with the highest productivity in terms of work and family life.

Migraine is a genetic neurologic disease that can be influenced or triggered by environmental factors. However, triggers do not cause migraine. For example, stress does not cause migraine, but it can exacerbate it.

Primary care physicians can help patients reduce the likelihood of a migraine attack, the severity of symptoms, or both by offering lifestyle counseling centered around the mnemonic SEEDS: sleep, exercise, eat, diary, and stress. In this article, each factor is discussed individually for its current support in the literature along with best-practice recommendations.

S IS FOR SLEEP

Before optimizing sleep hygiene, screen for sleep apnea, especially in those who have chronic daily headache upon awakening. An excellent tool is the STOP-Bang screening questionnaire⁵ (www.stopbang.ca/osa/screening.php). Patients respond “yes” or “no” to the following questions:

• Snoring: Do you snore loudly (louder than talking or loud enough to be heard through closed doors)?
• Tired: Do you often feel tired, fatigued, or sleepy during the daytime?
• Observed: Has anyone observed you stop breathing during your sleep?
• Pressure: Do you have or are you being treated for high blood pressure?
• Body mass index greater than 35 kg/m²?
• Age over 50?
• Neck circumference larger than 40 cm (females) or  42 cm (males)?
• Gender—male?

Each “yes” answer is scored as 1 point. A score less than 3 indicates low risk of obstructive sleep apnea; 3 to 4 indicates moderate risk; and 5 or more indicates high risk. Optimization of sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure therapy can improve sleep apnea headache.⁶ The improved sleep from reduced arousals may also mitigate migraine symptoms.

Behavioral modification for sleep hygiene can convert chronic migraine to episodic migraine.⁷ One such program is stimulus control therapy, which focuses on using cues to initiate sleep (Table 1). Patients are encouraged to keep the bedroom quiet, dark, and cool, and to go to sleep at the same time every night. Importantly, the bed should be associated only with sleep. If patients are unable to fall asleep within 20 to 30 minutes, they should leave the room so they do not associate the bed with frustration and anxiety. Use of phones, tablets, and television in the bedroom is discouraged as these devices may make it more difficult to fall asleep.⁸

The next option is sleep restriction, which is useful for comorbid insomnia. Patients keep a sleep diary to better understand their sleep-wake cycle. The goal is 90% sleep efficiency, meaning that 90% of the time in bed (TIB) is spent asleep. For example, if the patient is in bed 8 hours but asleep only 4 hours, sleep efficiency is 50%. The goal is to reduce TIB to match the time asleep and to agree on a prescribed daily wake-up time. When the patient is consistently sleeping 90% of the TIB, add 30-minute increments until he or she is appropriately sleeping 7 to 8 hours at night.⁹ Naps are not recommended.

Let patients know that their migraine may worsen until a new routine sleep pattern emerges. This method is not recommended for patients with untreated sleep apnea.

E IS FOR EXERCISE

Exercise is broadly recommended for a healthy lifestyle; some evidence suggests that it can also be useful in the management of migraine.¹⁰ Low levels of physical activity and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with migraine.¹¹ It is unclear if patients with migraine are less likely to exercise because they want to avoid triggering a migraine or if a sedentary lifestyle increases their risk.

Exercise has been studied for its prophylactic benefits in migraine, and one hypothesis relates to beta-endorphins. Levels of beta-endorphins are reduced in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine.¹² Exercise programs may increase levels while reducing headache frequency and duration.¹³ One study showed that pain thresholds do not change with exercise programs, suggesting that it is avoidance behavior that is positively altered rather than the underlying pain pathways.¹⁴

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 5 randomized controlled trials and 1 nonrandomized controlled clinical trial showed that exercise reduced monthly migraine days by only 0.6 (± 0.3) days, but the data also suggested that as the exercise intensity increased, so did the positive effects.¹⁰

Some data suggest that exercise may also reduce migraine duration and severity as well as the need for abortive medication.¹⁰ Two studies in this systematic review^15,16 showed that exercise benefits were equivalent to those of migraine preventives such as amitriptyline and topiramate; the combination of amitriptyline and exercise was more beneficial than exercise alone. Multiple types of exercise were beneficial, including walking, jogging, cross-training, and cycling when done for least 6 weeks and for 30 to 50 minutes 3 to 5 times a week.

These findings are in line with the current recommendations for general health from the American College of Sports Medicine, ie, moderate to vigorous cardio­respiratory exercise for 30 to 60 minutes 3 to 5 times a week (or 150 minutes per week). The daily exercise can be continuous or done in intervals of less than 20 minutes. For those with a sedentary lifestyle, as is seen in a significant proportion of the migraine population, light to moderate exercise for less than 20 minutes is still beneficial.¹⁷

Based on this evidence, the best current recommendation for patients with migraine is to engage in graded moderate cardiorespiratory exercise, although any exercise is better than none. If a patient is sedentary or has poor exercise tolerance, or both, exercising once a week for shorter time periods may be a manageable place to start.

Some patients may identify exercise as a trigger or exacerbating factor in migraine. These patients may need appropriate prophylactic and abortive therapies before starting an exercise regimen.

THE SECOND E IS FOR EAT (FOOD AND DRINK)

Many patients believe that some foods trigger migraine attacks, but further study is needed. The most consistent food triggers appear to be red wine and caffeine (withdrawal).^18,19 Interestingly, patients with migraine report low levels of alcohol consumption,²⁰ but it is unclear if that is because alcohol has a protective effect or if patients avoid it.

Some patients may crave certain foods in the prodromal phase of an attack, eat the food, experience the attack, and falsely conclude that the food caused the attack.²¹ Premonitory symptoms include fatigue, cognitive changes, homeostatic changes, sensory hyperresponsiveness, and food cravings.²¹ It is difficult to distinguish between premonitory phase food cravings and true triggers because premonitory symptoms can precede headache by 48 to 72 hours, and the timing for a trigger to be considered causal is not known.²²

Chocolate is often thought to be a migraine trigger, but the evidence argues against this and even suggests that sweet cravings are a part of the premonitory phase.²³ Monosodium glutamate is often identified as a trigger as well, but the literature is inconsistent and does not support a causal relationship.²⁴ Identifying true food triggers in migraine is difficult, and patients with migraine may have poor quality diets, with some foods acting as true triggers for certain patients.²⁵ These possibilities have led to the development of many “migraine diets,” including elimination diets.

Elimination diets

Elimination diets involve avoiding specific food items over a period of time and then adding them back in one at a time to gauge whether they cause a reaction in the body. A number of these diets have been studied for their effects on headache and migraine:

Gluten-free diets restrict foods that contain wheat, rye, and barley. A systematic review of gluten-free diets in patients with celiac disease found that headache or migraine frequency decreased by 51.6% to 100% based on multiple cohort studies (N = 42,388).²⁶ There are no studies on the use of a gluten-free diet for migraine in patients without celiac disease.

Immunoglobulin G-elimination diets restrict foods that serve as antigens for IgG. However, data supporting these diets are inconsistent. Two small randomized controlled trials found that the diets improved migraine symptoms, but a larger study found no improvement in the number of migraine days at 12 weeks, although there was an initially significant effect at 4 weeks.^27–29

Antihistamine diets restrict foods that have high levels of histamines, including fermented dairy, vegetables, soy products,  wine, beer, alcohol, and those that cause histamine release regardless of IgE testing results. A prospective single-arm study of antihistamine diets in patients with chronic headache reported symptom improvement, which could be applied to certain comorbidities such as  mast cell activation syndrome.³⁰ Another prospective nonrandomized controlled study eliminated foods based on positive IgE skin-prick testing for allergy in patients with recurrent migraine and found that it reduced headache frequency.³¹

Tyramine-free diets are often recommended due to the presumption that tyramine-containing foods (eg, aged cheese, cured or smoked meats and fish, and beer) are triggers. However, multiple studies have reviewed this theory with inconsistent results,³² and the only study of a tyramine-free diet was negative.³³ In addition, commonly purported high-tyramine foods have lower tyramine levels than previously thought.³⁴

Low-fat diets in migraine are supported by 2 small randomized controlled trials and a prospective study showing a decrease in symptom severity; the results for frequency are inconsistent.^35–37

Low-glycemic index diets are supported in migraine by 1 randomized controlled trial that showed improvement in migraine frequency in a diet group and in a control group of patients who took a standard migraine-preventive medication to manage their symptoms.³⁸

Other migraine diets

Diets high in certain foods or ingredient ratios, as opposed to elimination diets, have also been studied in patients with migraine. One promising diet containing high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of omega-6 fatty acids was shown in a systematic review to reduce the duration of migraine but not the frequency or severity.³⁹ A more recent randomized controlled trial of this diet in chronic migraine also showed that it decreased migraine frequency.⁴⁰

The ketogenic diet (high fat, low carbohydrate) had promising results in a randomized controlled trial in overweight women with migraine and in a prospective study.^41,42 However, a prospective study of the Atkins diet in teenagers with chronic daily headaches showed no benefit.⁴³ The ketogenic diet is difficult to follow and may work in part due to weight loss alone, although ketogenesis itself may also play a role.^41,44

Sodium levels have been shown to be higher in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine than in controls, particularly during an attack.⁴⁵ For a prehypertensive population or an elderly population, a low-sodium diet may be beneficial based on 2 prospective trials.^46,47 However, a younger female population without hypertension and low-to-normal body mass index had a reduced probability of migraine while consuming a high-sodium diet.⁴⁸

Counseling about sodium intake should be tailored to specific patient populations. For example, a diet low in sodium may be appropriate for patients with vascular risk factors such as hypertension, whereas a high-sodium diet may be appropriate in patients with comorbidities like postural tachycardia syndrome or in those with a propensity for low blood pressure or low body mass index.

Encourage routine meals and hydration

The standard advice for patients with migraine is to consume regular meals. Headaches have been associated with fasting, and those with migraine are predisposed to attacks in the setting of fasting.^49,50 Migraine is more common when meals are skipped, particularly breakfast.⁵¹

It is unclear how fasting lowers the migraine threshold. Nutritional studies show that skipping meals, particularly breakfast, increases low-grade inflammation and impairs  glucose metabolism by affecting insulin and fat oxidation metabolism.⁵² However, hypoglycemia itself is not a consistent cause of headache or migraine attacks.⁵³ As described above, a randomized controlled trial of a low-glycemic index diet actually decreased migraine frequency and severity.³⁸ Skipping meals also reduces energy and is associated with reduced physical activity, perhaps leading to multiple compounding triggers that further lower the migraine threshold.^54,55

When counseling patients about the need to eat breakfast, consider what they normally consume (eg, is breakfast just a cup of coffee?). Replacing simple carbohydrates with protein, fats, and fiber may be beneficial for general health, but the effects on migraine are not known, nor is the optimal composition of breakfast foods.⁵⁵

The optimal timing of breakfast relative to awakening is also unclear, but in general, it should be eaten within 30 to 60 minutes of rising. Also consider patients’ work hours—delayed-phase or shift workers have altered sleep cycles.

Recommendations vary in regard to hydration. Headache is associated with fluid restriction and dehydration,^56,57 but only a few studies suggest that rehydration and increased hydration status can improve migraine.⁵⁸ In fact, a single post hoc analysis of a metoclopramide study showed that intravenous fluid alone for patients with migraine in the emergency room did not improve pain outcomes.⁵⁹

The amount of water patients should drink daily in the setting of migraine is also unknown, but a study showed benefit with 4 L, which equates to a daily intake of 16 eight-ounce glasses.⁶⁰ One review on general health that could be extrapolated given the low risk of the intervention indicated that 1.8 L daily (7 to 8 eight-ounce glasses) promoted a euhydration status in most people, although many factors contribute to hydration status.⁶¹

Caffeine intake is also a major consideration. Caffeine is a nonspecific adenosine receptor antagonist that modulates adenosine receptors like the pronociceptive 2A receptor, leading to changes integral to the neuropathophysiology of migraine.⁶² Caffeine has analgesic properties at doses greater than 65 to 200 mg and augments the effects of analgesics such as acetaminophen and aspirin. Chronic caffeine use can lead to withdrawal symptoms when intake is stopped abruptly; this is thought to be due to upregulation of adenosine receptors, but the effect varies based on genetic predisposition.¹⁹

The risk of chronic daily headache may relate to high use of caffeine preceding the onset of chronification, and caffeine abstinence may improve response to acute migraine treatment.^19,63 There is a dose-dependent risk of headache.^64,65 Current recommendations suggest limiting caffeine consumption to less than 200 mg per day or stopping caffeine consumption altogether based on the quantity required for caffeine-withdrawal headache.⁶⁶ Varying  the caffeine dose from day to day may also trigger headache due to the high sensitivity to caffeine withdrawal.

While many diets have shown potential benefit in patients with migraine, more studies are needed before any one “migraine diet” can be recommended. Caution should be taken, as there is risk of adverse effects from nutrient deficiencies or excess levels, especially if the patient is not under the care of a healthcare professional who is familiar with the diet.

Whether it is beneficial to avoid specific food triggers at this time is unclear and still controversial even within the migraine community because some of these foods may be misattributed as triggers instead of premonitory cravings driven by the hypothalamus. It is important to counsel patients with migraine to eat a healthy diet with consistent meals, to maintain adequate hydration, and to keep their caffeine intake low or at least consistent, although these teachings are predominantly based on limited studies with extrapolation from nutrition research.

D IS FOR DIARY

A headache diary is a recommended part of headache management and may enhance the accuracy of diagnosis and assist in treatment modifications. Paper and electronic diaries have been used. Electronic diaries may be more accurate for real-time use, but patients may be more likely to complete a paper one.⁶⁷ Patients prefer electronic diaries over long paper forms,⁶⁸ but a practical issue to consider is easy electronic access.

Patients can start keeping a headache diary before the initial consultation to assist with diagnosis, or early in their management. A first-appointment diary mailed with instructions is a feasible option.⁶⁹ These types of diaries ask detailed questions to help diagnose all major primary headache types including menstrual migraine and to identify concomitant medication-overuse headache. Physicians and patients generally report improved communication with use of a diary.⁷⁰

Some providers distinguish between a headache diary and a calendar. In standard practice, a headache diary is the general term referring to both, but the literature differentiates between the two. Both should at least include headache frequency, with possible inclusion of other factors such as headache duration, headache intensity, analgesic use, headache impact on function, and absenteeism. Potential triggers including menses can also be tracked. The calendar version can fit on a single page and can be used for simple tracking of headache frequency and analgesia use.

One of the simplest calendars to use is the “stoplight” calendar. Red days are when a patient is completely debilitated in bed. On a yellow day, function at work, school, or daily activities is significantly reduced by migraine, but the patient is not bedbound. A green day is when headache is present but function is not affected. No color is placed if the patient is 100% headache-free.

Acute treatment use can be written in or, to improve compliance, a checkmark can be placed on days of treatment. Patients who are tracking menses circle the days of menstruation. The calendar-diary should be brought to every appointment to track treatment response and medication use.

THE SECOND S IS FOR STRESS

Behavioral management such as cognitive behavioral therapy in migraine has been shown to decrease catastrophizing, migraine disability, and headache severity and frequency.⁷⁴ Both depression and anxiety can improve along with migraine.⁷⁵ Cognitive behavioral therapy can be provided in individualized sessions or group sessions, either in person or online.^74,76,77 The effects become more prominent about 5 weeks into treatment.⁷⁸

Biofeedback, which uses behavioral techniques paired with physiologic autonomic measures, has been extensively studied, and shows benefit in migraine, including in meta-analysis.⁷⁹ The types of biofeedback measurements used include electromyography, electroencephalography, temperature, sweat sensors, heart rate, blood volume pulse feedback, and respiration bands. While biofeedback is generally done under the guidance of a therapist, it can still be useful with minimal therapist contact and supplemental audio.⁸⁰

Mindfulness, or the awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations in the present moment without judgment, is a behavioral technique that can be done alone or paired with another technique. It is often taught through a mindfulness-based stress-reduction  program, which relies on a standardized approach. A meta-analysis showed that mindfulness improves pain intensity, headache frequency, disability, self-efficacy, and quality of life.⁸¹ It may work by encouraging pain acceptance.⁸²

Relaxation techniques are also employed in migraine management, either alone or in conjunction with techniques mentioned  above, such as mindfulness. They include progressive muscle relaxation and deep breathing. Relaxation has been shown to be effective when done by professional trainers as well as lay trainers in both individual and group settings.^83,84

In patients with intractable headache, more-intensive inpatient and outpatient programs have been tried. Inpatient admissions with multidisciplinary programs that include a focus on behavioral techniques often paired with lifestyle education and sometimes pharmacologic management can be beneficial.^85,86 These programs have also been successfully conducted as multiple outpatient sessions.^86–88

Stress management is an important aspect of migraine management. These treatments often involve homework and require active participation.

LIFESTYLE FOR ALL

All patients with migraine should initiate lifestyle modifications (see Advice to patients with migraine: SEEDS for success). Modifications with the highest level of evidence, specifically behavioral techniques, have had the most reproducible results. A headache diary is an essential tool to identify patterns and needs for optimization of acute or preventive treatment regimens. The strongest evidence is for the behavioral management techniques for stress reduction.

Migraine is the second leading cause of years of life lived with a disability globally.¹ It affects people of all ages, but particularly during the years associated with the highest productivity in terms of work and family life.

Migraine is a genetic neurologic disease that can be influenced or triggered by environmental factors. However, triggers do not cause migraine. For example, stress does not cause migraine, but it can exacerbate it.

Primary care physicians can help patients reduce the likelihood of a migraine attack, the severity of symptoms, or both by offering lifestyle counseling centered around the mnemonic SEEDS: sleep, exercise, eat, diary, and stress. In this article, each factor is discussed individually for its current support in the literature along with best-practice recommendations.

S IS FOR SLEEP

Before optimizing sleep hygiene, screen for sleep apnea, especially in those who have chronic daily headache upon awakening. An excellent tool is the STOP-Bang screening questionnaire⁵ (www.stopbang.ca/osa/screening.php). Patients respond “yes” or “no” to the following questions:

• Snoring: Do you snore loudly (louder than talking or loud enough to be heard through closed doors)?
• Tired: Do you often feel tired, fatigued, or sleepy during the daytime?
• Observed: Has anyone observed you stop breathing during your sleep?
• Pressure: Do you have or are you being treated for high blood pressure?
• Body mass index greater than 35 kg/m²?
• Age over 50?
• Neck circumference larger than 40 cm (females) or  42 cm (males)?
• Gender—male?

Each “yes” answer is scored as 1 point. A score less than 3 indicates low risk of obstructive sleep apnea; 3 to 4 indicates moderate risk; and 5 or more indicates high risk. Optimization of sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure therapy can improve sleep apnea headache.⁶ The improved sleep from reduced arousals may also mitigate migraine symptoms.

Behavioral modification for sleep hygiene can convert chronic migraine to episodic migraine.⁷ One such program is stimulus control therapy, which focuses on using cues to initiate sleep (Table 1). Patients are encouraged to keep the bedroom quiet, dark, and cool, and to go to sleep at the same time every night. Importantly, the bed should be associated only with sleep. If patients are unable to fall asleep within 20 to 30 minutes, they should leave the room so they do not associate the bed with frustration and anxiety. Use of phones, tablets, and television in the bedroom is discouraged as these devices may make it more difficult to fall asleep.⁸

The next option is sleep restriction, which is useful for comorbid insomnia. Patients keep a sleep diary to better understand their sleep-wake cycle. The goal is 90% sleep efficiency, meaning that 90% of the time in bed (TIB) is spent asleep. For example, if the patient is in bed 8 hours but asleep only 4 hours, sleep efficiency is 50%. The goal is to reduce TIB to match the time asleep and to agree on a prescribed daily wake-up time. When the patient is consistently sleeping 90% of the TIB, add 30-minute increments until he or she is appropriately sleeping 7 to 8 hours at night.⁹ Naps are not recommended.

Let patients know that their migraine may worsen until a new routine sleep pattern emerges. This method is not recommended for patients with untreated sleep apnea.

E IS FOR EXERCISE

Exercise is broadly recommended for a healthy lifestyle; some evidence suggests that it can also be useful in the management of migraine.¹⁰ Low levels of physical activity and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with migraine.¹¹ It is unclear if patients with migraine are less likely to exercise because they want to avoid triggering a migraine or if a sedentary lifestyle increases their risk.

Exercise has been studied for its prophylactic benefits in migraine, and one hypothesis relates to beta-endorphins. Levels of beta-endorphins are reduced in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine.¹² Exercise programs may increase levels while reducing headache frequency and duration.¹³ One study showed that pain thresholds do not change with exercise programs, suggesting that it is avoidance behavior that is positively altered rather than the underlying pain pathways.¹⁴

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 5 randomized controlled trials and 1 nonrandomized controlled clinical trial showed that exercise reduced monthly migraine days by only 0.6 (± 0.3) days, but the data also suggested that as the exercise intensity increased, so did the positive effects.¹⁰

Some data suggest that exercise may also reduce migraine duration and severity as well as the need for abortive medication.¹⁰ Two studies in this systematic review^15,16 showed that exercise benefits were equivalent to those of migraine preventives such as amitriptyline and topiramate; the combination of amitriptyline and exercise was more beneficial than exercise alone. Multiple types of exercise were beneficial, including walking, jogging, cross-training, and cycling when done for least 6 weeks and for 30 to 50 minutes 3 to 5 times a week.

These findings are in line with the current recommendations for general health from the American College of Sports Medicine, ie, moderate to vigorous cardio­respiratory exercise for 30 to 60 minutes 3 to 5 times a week (or 150 minutes per week). The daily exercise can be continuous or done in intervals of less than 20 minutes. For those with a sedentary lifestyle, as is seen in a significant proportion of the migraine population, light to moderate exercise for less than 20 minutes is still beneficial.¹⁷

Based on this evidence, the best current recommendation for patients with migraine is to engage in graded moderate cardiorespiratory exercise, although any exercise is better than none. If a patient is sedentary or has poor exercise tolerance, or both, exercising once a week for shorter time periods may be a manageable place to start.

Some patients may identify exercise as a trigger or exacerbating factor in migraine. These patients may need appropriate prophylactic and abortive therapies before starting an exercise regimen.

THE SECOND E IS FOR EAT (FOOD AND DRINK)

Many patients believe that some foods trigger migraine attacks, but further study is needed. The most consistent food triggers appear to be red wine and caffeine (withdrawal).^18,19 Interestingly, patients with migraine report low levels of alcohol consumption,²⁰ but it is unclear if that is because alcohol has a protective effect or if patients avoid it.

Some patients may crave certain foods in the prodromal phase of an attack, eat the food, experience the attack, and falsely conclude that the food caused the attack.²¹ Premonitory symptoms include fatigue, cognitive changes, homeostatic changes, sensory hyperresponsiveness, and food cravings.²¹ It is difficult to distinguish between premonitory phase food cravings and true triggers because premonitory symptoms can precede headache by 48 to 72 hours, and the timing for a trigger to be considered causal is not known.²²

Chocolate is often thought to be a migraine trigger, but the evidence argues against this and even suggests that sweet cravings are a part of the premonitory phase.²³ Monosodium glutamate is often identified as a trigger as well, but the literature is inconsistent and does not support a causal relationship.²⁴ Identifying true food triggers in migraine is difficult, and patients with migraine may have poor quality diets, with some foods acting as true triggers for certain patients.²⁵ These possibilities have led to the development of many “migraine diets,” including elimination diets.

Elimination diets

Elimination diets involve avoiding specific food items over a period of time and then adding them back in one at a time to gauge whether they cause a reaction in the body. A number of these diets have been studied for their effects on headache and migraine:

Gluten-free diets restrict foods that contain wheat, rye, and barley. A systematic review of gluten-free diets in patients with celiac disease found that headache or migraine frequency decreased by 51.6% to 100% based on multiple cohort studies (N = 42,388).²⁶ There are no studies on the use of a gluten-free diet for migraine in patients without celiac disease.

Immunoglobulin G-elimination diets restrict foods that serve as antigens for IgG. However, data supporting these diets are inconsistent. Two small randomized controlled trials found that the diets improved migraine symptoms, but a larger study found no improvement in the number of migraine days at 12 weeks, although there was an initially significant effect at 4 weeks.^27–29

Antihistamine diets restrict foods that have high levels of histamines, including fermented dairy, vegetables, soy products,  wine, beer, alcohol, and those that cause histamine release regardless of IgE testing results. A prospective single-arm study of antihistamine diets in patients with chronic headache reported symptom improvement, which could be applied to certain comorbidities such as  mast cell activation syndrome.³⁰ Another prospective nonrandomized controlled study eliminated foods based on positive IgE skin-prick testing for allergy in patients with recurrent migraine and found that it reduced headache frequency.³¹

Tyramine-free diets are often recommended due to the presumption that tyramine-containing foods (eg, aged cheese, cured or smoked meats and fish, and beer) are triggers. However, multiple studies have reviewed this theory with inconsistent results,³² and the only study of a tyramine-free diet was negative.³³ In addition, commonly purported high-tyramine foods have lower tyramine levels than previously thought.³⁴

Low-fat diets in migraine are supported by 2 small randomized controlled trials and a prospective study showing a decrease in symptom severity; the results for frequency are inconsistent.^35–37

Low-glycemic index diets are supported in migraine by 1 randomized controlled trial that showed improvement in migraine frequency in a diet group and in a control group of patients who took a standard migraine-preventive medication to manage their symptoms.³⁸

Other migraine diets

Diets high in certain foods or ingredient ratios, as opposed to elimination diets, have also been studied in patients with migraine. One promising diet containing high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of omega-6 fatty acids was shown in a systematic review to reduce the duration of migraine but not the frequency or severity.³⁹ A more recent randomized controlled trial of this diet in chronic migraine also showed that it decreased migraine frequency.⁴⁰

The ketogenic diet (high fat, low carbohydrate) had promising results in a randomized controlled trial in overweight women with migraine and in a prospective study.^41,42 However, a prospective study of the Atkins diet in teenagers with chronic daily headaches showed no benefit.⁴³ The ketogenic diet is difficult to follow and may work in part due to weight loss alone, although ketogenesis itself may also play a role.^41,44

Sodium levels have been shown to be higher in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine than in controls, particularly during an attack.⁴⁵ For a prehypertensive population or an elderly population, a low-sodium diet may be beneficial based on 2 prospective trials.^46,47 However, a younger female population without hypertension and low-to-normal body mass index had a reduced probability of migraine while consuming a high-sodium diet.⁴⁸

Counseling about sodium intake should be tailored to specific patient populations. For example, a diet low in sodium may be appropriate for patients with vascular risk factors such as hypertension, whereas a high-sodium diet may be appropriate in patients with comorbidities like postural tachycardia syndrome or in those with a propensity for low blood pressure or low body mass index.

Encourage routine meals and hydration

The standard advice for patients with migraine is to consume regular meals. Headaches have been associated with fasting, and those with migraine are predisposed to attacks in the setting of fasting.^49,50 Migraine is more common when meals are skipped, particularly breakfast.⁵¹

It is unclear how fasting lowers the migraine threshold. Nutritional studies show that skipping meals, particularly breakfast, increases low-grade inflammation and impairs  glucose metabolism by affecting insulin and fat oxidation metabolism.⁵² However, hypoglycemia itself is not a consistent cause of headache or migraine attacks.⁵³ As described above, a randomized controlled trial of a low-glycemic index diet actually decreased migraine frequency and severity.³⁸ Skipping meals also reduces energy and is associated with reduced physical activity, perhaps leading to multiple compounding triggers that further lower the migraine threshold.^54,55

When counseling patients about the need to eat breakfast, consider what they normally consume (eg, is breakfast just a cup of coffee?). Replacing simple carbohydrates with protein, fats, and fiber may be beneficial for general health, but the effects on migraine are not known, nor is the optimal composition of breakfast foods.⁵⁵

The optimal timing of breakfast relative to awakening is also unclear, but in general, it should be eaten within 30 to 60 minutes of rising. Also consider patients’ work hours—delayed-phase or shift workers have altered sleep cycles.

Recommendations vary in regard to hydration. Headache is associated with fluid restriction and dehydration,^56,57 but only a few studies suggest that rehydration and increased hydration status can improve migraine.⁵⁸ In fact, a single post hoc analysis of a metoclopramide study showed that intravenous fluid alone for patients with migraine in the emergency room did not improve pain outcomes.⁵⁹

The amount of water patients should drink daily in the setting of migraine is also unknown, but a study showed benefit with 4 L, which equates to a daily intake of 16 eight-ounce glasses.⁶⁰ One review on general health that could be extrapolated given the low risk of the intervention indicated that 1.8 L daily (7 to 8 eight-ounce glasses) promoted a euhydration status in most people, although many factors contribute to hydration status.⁶¹

Caffeine intake is also a major consideration. Caffeine is a nonspecific adenosine receptor antagonist that modulates adenosine receptors like the pronociceptive 2A receptor, leading to changes integral to the neuropathophysiology of migraine.⁶² Caffeine has analgesic properties at doses greater than 65 to 200 mg and augments the effects of analgesics such as acetaminophen and aspirin. Chronic caffeine use can lead to withdrawal symptoms when intake is stopped abruptly; this is thought to be due to upregulation of adenosine receptors, but the effect varies based on genetic predisposition.¹⁹

The risk of chronic daily headache may relate to high use of caffeine preceding the onset of chronification, and caffeine abstinence may improve response to acute migraine treatment.^19,63 There is a dose-dependent risk of headache.^64,65 Current recommendations suggest limiting caffeine consumption to less than 200 mg per day or stopping caffeine consumption altogether based on the quantity required for caffeine-withdrawal headache.⁶⁶ Varying  the caffeine dose from day to day may also trigger headache due to the high sensitivity to caffeine withdrawal.

While many diets have shown potential benefit in patients with migraine, more studies are needed before any one “migraine diet” can be recommended. Caution should be taken, as there is risk of adverse effects from nutrient deficiencies or excess levels, especially if the patient is not under the care of a healthcare professional who is familiar with the diet.

Whether it is beneficial to avoid specific food triggers at this time is unclear and still controversial even within the migraine community because some of these foods may be misattributed as triggers instead of premonitory cravings driven by the hypothalamus. It is important to counsel patients with migraine to eat a healthy diet with consistent meals, to maintain adequate hydration, and to keep their caffeine intake low or at least consistent, although these teachings are predominantly based on limited studies with extrapolation from nutrition research.

D IS FOR DIARY

A headache diary is a recommended part of headache management and may enhance the accuracy of diagnosis and assist in treatment modifications. Paper and electronic diaries have been used. Electronic diaries may be more accurate for real-time use, but patients may be more likely to complete a paper one.⁶⁷ Patients prefer electronic diaries over long paper forms,⁶⁸ but a practical issue to consider is easy electronic access.

Patients can start keeping a headache diary before the initial consultation to assist with diagnosis, or early in their management. A first-appointment diary mailed with instructions is a feasible option.⁶⁹ These types of diaries ask detailed questions to help diagnose all major primary headache types including menstrual migraine and to identify concomitant medication-overuse headache. Physicians and patients generally report improved communication with use of a diary.⁷⁰

Some providers distinguish between a headache diary and a calendar. In standard practice, a headache diary is the general term referring to both, but the literature differentiates between the two. Both should at least include headache frequency, with possible inclusion of other factors such as headache duration, headache intensity, analgesic use, headache impact on function, and absenteeism. Potential triggers including menses can also be tracked. The calendar version can fit on a single page and can be used for simple tracking of headache frequency and analgesia use.

One of the simplest calendars to use is the “stoplight” calendar. Red days are when a patient is completely debilitated in bed. On a yellow day, function at work, school, or daily activities is significantly reduced by migraine, but the patient is not bedbound. A green day is when headache is present but function is not affected. No color is placed if the patient is 100% headache-free.

Acute treatment use can be written in or, to improve compliance, a checkmark can be placed on days of treatment. Patients who are tracking menses circle the days of menstruation. The calendar-diary should be brought to every appointment to track treatment response and medication use.

THE SECOND S IS FOR STRESS

Behavioral management such as cognitive behavioral therapy in migraine has been shown to decrease catastrophizing, migraine disability, and headache severity and frequency.⁷⁴ Both depression and anxiety can improve along with migraine.⁷⁵ Cognitive behavioral therapy can be provided in individualized sessions or group sessions, either in person or online.^74,76,77 The effects become more prominent about 5 weeks into treatment.⁷⁸

Biofeedback, which uses behavioral techniques paired with physiologic autonomic measures, has been extensively studied, and shows benefit in migraine, including in meta-analysis.⁷⁹ The types of biofeedback measurements used include electromyography, electroencephalography, temperature, sweat sensors, heart rate, blood volume pulse feedback, and respiration bands. While biofeedback is generally done under the guidance of a therapist, it can still be useful with minimal therapist contact and supplemental audio.⁸⁰

Mindfulness, or the awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations in the present moment without judgment, is a behavioral technique that can be done alone or paired with another technique. It is often taught through a mindfulness-based stress-reduction  program, which relies on a standardized approach. A meta-analysis showed that mindfulness improves pain intensity, headache frequency, disability, self-efficacy, and quality of life.⁸¹ It may work by encouraging pain acceptance.⁸²

Relaxation techniques are also employed in migraine management, either alone or in conjunction with techniques mentioned  above, such as mindfulness. They include progressive muscle relaxation and deep breathing. Relaxation has been shown to be effective when done by professional trainers as well as lay trainers in both individual and group settings.^83,84

In patients with intractable headache, more-intensive inpatient and outpatient programs have been tried. Inpatient admissions with multidisciplinary programs that include a focus on behavioral techniques often paired with lifestyle education and sometimes pharmacologic management can be beneficial.^85,86 These programs have also been successfully conducted as multiple outpatient sessions.^86–88

Stress management is an important aspect of migraine management. These treatments often involve homework and require active participation.

LIFESTYLE FOR ALL

All patients with migraine should initiate lifestyle modifications (see Advice to patients with migraine: SEEDS for success). Modifications with the highest level of evidence, specifically behavioral techniques, have had the most reproducible results. A headache diary is an essential tool to identify patterns and needs for optimization of acute or preventive treatment regimens. The strongest evidence is for the behavioral management techniques for stress reduction.

Migraine is the second leading cause of years of life lived with a disability globally.¹ It affects people of all ages, but particularly during the years associated with the highest productivity in terms of work and family life.

Migraine is a genetic neurologic disease that can be influenced or triggered by environmental factors. However, triggers do not cause migraine. For example, stress does not cause migraine, but it can exacerbate it.

Primary care physicians can help patients reduce the likelihood of a migraine attack, the severity of symptoms, or both by offering lifestyle counseling centered around the mnemonic SEEDS: sleep, exercise, eat, diary, and stress. In this article, each factor is discussed individually for its current support in the literature along with best-practice recommendations.

S IS FOR SLEEP

Before optimizing sleep hygiene, screen for sleep apnea, especially in those who have chronic daily headache upon awakening. An excellent tool is the STOP-Bang screening questionnaire⁵ (www.stopbang.ca/osa/screening.php). Patients respond “yes” or “no” to the following questions:

• Snoring: Do you snore loudly (louder than talking or loud enough to be heard through closed doors)?
• Tired: Do you often feel tired, fatigued, or sleepy during the daytime?
• Observed: Has anyone observed you stop breathing during your sleep?
• Pressure: Do you have or are you being treated for high blood pressure?
• Body mass index greater than 35 kg/m²?
• Age over 50?
• Neck circumference larger than 40 cm (females) or  42 cm (males)?
• Gender—male?

Each “yes” answer is scored as 1 point. A score less than 3 indicates low risk of obstructive sleep apnea; 3 to 4 indicates moderate risk; and 5 or more indicates high risk. Optimization of sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure therapy can improve sleep apnea headache.⁶ The improved sleep from reduced arousals may also mitigate migraine symptoms.

Behavioral modification for sleep hygiene can convert chronic migraine to episodic migraine.⁷ One such program is stimulus control therapy, which focuses on using cues to initiate sleep (Table 1). Patients are encouraged to keep the bedroom quiet, dark, and cool, and to go to sleep at the same time every night. Importantly, the bed should be associated only with sleep. If patients are unable to fall asleep within 20 to 30 minutes, they should leave the room so they do not associate the bed with frustration and anxiety. Use of phones, tablets, and television in the bedroom is discouraged as these devices may make it more difficult to fall asleep.⁸

The next option is sleep restriction, which is useful for comorbid insomnia. Patients keep a sleep diary to better understand their sleep-wake cycle. The goal is 90% sleep efficiency, meaning that 90% of the time in bed (TIB) is spent asleep. For example, if the patient is in bed 8 hours but asleep only 4 hours, sleep efficiency is 50%. The goal is to reduce TIB to match the time asleep and to agree on a prescribed daily wake-up time. When the patient is consistently sleeping 90% of the TIB, add 30-minute increments until he or she is appropriately sleeping 7 to 8 hours at night.⁹ Naps are not recommended.

Let patients know that their migraine may worsen until a new routine sleep pattern emerges. This method is not recommended for patients with untreated sleep apnea.

E IS FOR EXERCISE

Exercise is broadly recommended for a healthy lifestyle; some evidence suggests that it can also be useful in the management of migraine.¹⁰ Low levels of physical activity and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with migraine.¹¹ It is unclear if patients with migraine are less likely to exercise because they want to avoid triggering a migraine or if a sedentary lifestyle increases their risk.

Exercise has been studied for its prophylactic benefits in migraine, and one hypothesis relates to beta-endorphins. Levels of beta-endorphins are reduced in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine.¹² Exercise programs may increase levels while reducing headache frequency and duration.¹³ One study showed that pain thresholds do not change with exercise programs, suggesting that it is avoidance behavior that is positively altered rather than the underlying pain pathways.¹⁴

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 5 randomized controlled trials and 1 nonrandomized controlled clinical trial showed that exercise reduced monthly migraine days by only 0.6 (± 0.3) days, but the data also suggested that as the exercise intensity increased, so did the positive effects.¹⁰

Some data suggest that exercise may also reduce migraine duration and severity as well as the need for abortive medication.¹⁰ Two studies in this systematic review^15,16 showed that exercise benefits were equivalent to those of migraine preventives such as amitriptyline and topiramate; the combination of amitriptyline and exercise was more beneficial than exercise alone. Multiple types of exercise were beneficial, including walking, jogging, cross-training, and cycling when done for least 6 weeks and for 30 to 50 minutes 3 to 5 times a week.

These findings are in line with the current recommendations for general health from the American College of Sports Medicine, ie, moderate to vigorous cardio­respiratory exercise for 30 to 60 minutes 3 to 5 times a week (or 150 minutes per week). The daily exercise can be continuous or done in intervals of less than 20 minutes. For those with a sedentary lifestyle, as is seen in a significant proportion of the migraine population, light to moderate exercise for less than 20 minutes is still beneficial.¹⁷

Based on this evidence, the best current recommendation for patients with migraine is to engage in graded moderate cardiorespiratory exercise, although any exercise is better than none. If a patient is sedentary or has poor exercise tolerance, or both, exercising once a week for shorter time periods may be a manageable place to start.

Some patients may identify exercise as a trigger or exacerbating factor in migraine. These patients may need appropriate prophylactic and abortive therapies before starting an exercise regimen.

THE SECOND E IS FOR EAT (FOOD AND DRINK)

Many patients believe that some foods trigger migraine attacks, but further study is needed. The most consistent food triggers appear to be red wine and caffeine (withdrawal).^18,19 Interestingly, patients with migraine report low levels of alcohol consumption,²⁰ but it is unclear if that is because alcohol has a protective effect or if patients avoid it.

Some patients may crave certain foods in the prodromal phase of an attack, eat the food, experience the attack, and falsely conclude that the food caused the attack.²¹ Premonitory symptoms include fatigue, cognitive changes, homeostatic changes, sensory hyperresponsiveness, and food cravings.²¹ It is difficult to distinguish between premonitory phase food cravings and true triggers because premonitory symptoms can precede headache by 48 to 72 hours, and the timing for a trigger to be considered causal is not known.²²

Chocolate is often thought to be a migraine trigger, but the evidence argues against this and even suggests that sweet cravings are a part of the premonitory phase.²³ Monosodium glutamate is often identified as a trigger as well, but the literature is inconsistent and does not support a causal relationship.²⁴ Identifying true food triggers in migraine is difficult, and patients with migraine may have poor quality diets, with some foods acting as true triggers for certain patients.²⁵ These possibilities have led to the development of many “migraine diets,” including elimination diets.

Elimination diets

Elimination diets involve avoiding specific food items over a period of time and then adding them back in one at a time to gauge whether they cause a reaction in the body. A number of these diets have been studied for their effects on headache and migraine:

Gluten-free diets restrict foods that contain wheat, rye, and barley. A systematic review of gluten-free diets in patients with celiac disease found that headache or migraine frequency decreased by 51.6% to 100% based on multiple cohort studies (N = 42,388).²⁶ There are no studies on the use of a gluten-free diet for migraine in patients without celiac disease.

Immunoglobulin G-elimination diets restrict foods that serve as antigens for IgG. However, data supporting these diets are inconsistent. Two small randomized controlled trials found that the diets improved migraine symptoms, but a larger study found no improvement in the number of migraine days at 12 weeks, although there was an initially significant effect at 4 weeks.^27–29

Antihistamine diets restrict foods that have high levels of histamines, including fermented dairy, vegetables, soy products,  wine, beer, alcohol, and those that cause histamine release regardless of IgE testing results. A prospective single-arm study of antihistamine diets in patients with chronic headache reported symptom improvement, which could be applied to certain comorbidities such as  mast cell activation syndrome.³⁰ Another prospective nonrandomized controlled study eliminated foods based on positive IgE skin-prick testing for allergy in patients with recurrent migraine and found that it reduced headache frequency.³¹

Tyramine-free diets are often recommended due to the presumption that tyramine-containing foods (eg, aged cheese, cured or smoked meats and fish, and beer) are triggers. However, multiple studies have reviewed this theory with inconsistent results,³² and the only study of a tyramine-free diet was negative.³³ In addition, commonly purported high-tyramine foods have lower tyramine levels than previously thought.³⁴

Low-fat diets in migraine are supported by 2 small randomized controlled trials and a prospective study showing a decrease in symptom severity; the results for frequency are inconsistent.^35–37

Low-glycemic index diets are supported in migraine by 1 randomized controlled trial that showed improvement in migraine frequency in a diet group and in a control group of patients who took a standard migraine-preventive medication to manage their symptoms.³⁸

Other migraine diets

Diets high in certain foods or ingredient ratios, as opposed to elimination diets, have also been studied in patients with migraine. One promising diet containing high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of omega-6 fatty acids was shown in a systematic review to reduce the duration of migraine but not the frequency or severity.³⁹ A more recent randomized controlled trial of this diet in chronic migraine also showed that it decreased migraine frequency.⁴⁰

The ketogenic diet (high fat, low carbohydrate) had promising results in a randomized controlled trial in overweight women with migraine and in a prospective study.^41,42 However, a prospective study of the Atkins diet in teenagers with chronic daily headaches showed no benefit.⁴³ The ketogenic diet is difficult to follow and may work in part due to weight loss alone, although ketogenesis itself may also play a role.^41,44

Sodium levels have been shown to be higher in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with migraine than in controls, particularly during an attack.⁴⁵ For a prehypertensive population or an elderly population, a low-sodium diet may be beneficial based on 2 prospective trials.^46,47 However, a younger female population without hypertension and low-to-normal body mass index had a reduced probability of migraine while consuming a high-sodium diet.⁴⁸

Counseling about sodium intake should be tailored to specific patient populations. For example, a diet low in sodium may be appropriate for patients with vascular risk factors such as hypertension, whereas a high-sodium diet may be appropriate in patients with comorbidities like postural tachycardia syndrome or in those with a propensity for low blood pressure or low body mass index.

Encourage routine meals and hydration

The standard advice for patients with migraine is to consume regular meals. Headaches have been associated with fasting, and those with migraine are predisposed to attacks in the setting of fasting.^49,50 Migraine is more common when meals are skipped, particularly breakfast.⁵¹

It is unclear how fasting lowers the migraine threshold. Nutritional studies show that skipping meals, particularly breakfast, increases low-grade inflammation and impairs  glucose metabolism by affecting insulin and fat oxidation metabolism.⁵² However, hypoglycemia itself is not a consistent cause of headache or migraine attacks.⁵³ As described above, a randomized controlled trial of a low-glycemic index diet actually decreased migraine frequency and severity.³⁸ Skipping meals also reduces energy and is associated with reduced physical activity, perhaps leading to multiple compounding triggers that further lower the migraine threshold.^54,55

When counseling patients about the need to eat breakfast, consider what they normally consume (eg, is breakfast just a cup of coffee?). Replacing simple carbohydrates with protein, fats, and fiber may be beneficial for general health, but the effects on migraine are not known, nor is the optimal composition of breakfast foods.⁵⁵

The optimal timing of breakfast relative to awakening is also unclear, but in general, it should be eaten within 30 to 60 minutes of rising. Also consider patients’ work hours—delayed-phase or shift workers have altered sleep cycles.

Recommendations vary in regard to hydration. Headache is associated with fluid restriction and dehydration,^56,57 but only a few studies suggest that rehydration and increased hydration status can improve migraine.⁵⁸ In fact, a single post hoc analysis of a metoclopramide study showed that intravenous fluid alone for patients with migraine in the emergency room did not improve pain outcomes.⁵⁹

The amount of water patients should drink daily in the setting of migraine is also unknown, but a study showed benefit with 4 L, which equates to a daily intake of 16 eight-ounce glasses.⁶⁰ One review on general health that could be extrapolated given the low risk of the intervention indicated that 1.8 L daily (7 to 8 eight-ounce glasses) promoted a euhydration status in most people, although many factors contribute to hydration status.⁶¹

Caffeine intake is also a major consideration. Caffeine is a nonspecific adenosine receptor antagonist that modulates adenosine receptors like the pronociceptive 2A receptor, leading to changes integral to the neuropathophysiology of migraine.⁶² Caffeine has analgesic properties at doses greater than 65 to 200 mg and augments the effects of analgesics such as acetaminophen and aspirin. Chronic caffeine use can lead to withdrawal symptoms when intake is stopped abruptly; this is thought to be due to upregulation of adenosine receptors, but the effect varies based on genetic predisposition.¹⁹

The risk of chronic daily headache may relate to high use of caffeine preceding the onset of chronification, and caffeine abstinence may improve response to acute migraine treatment.^19,63 There is a dose-dependent risk of headache.^64,65 Current recommendations suggest limiting caffeine consumption to less than 200 mg per day or stopping caffeine consumption altogether based on the quantity required for caffeine-withdrawal headache.⁶⁶ Varying  the caffeine dose from day to day may also trigger headache due to the high sensitivity to caffeine withdrawal.

While many diets have shown potential benefit in patients with migraine, more studies are needed before any one “migraine diet” can be recommended. Caution should be taken, as there is risk of adverse effects from nutrient deficiencies or excess levels, especially if the patient is not under the care of a healthcare professional who is familiar with the diet.

Whether it is beneficial to avoid specific food triggers at this time is unclear and still controversial even within the migraine community because some of these foods may be misattributed as triggers instead of premonitory cravings driven by the hypothalamus. It is important to counsel patients with migraine to eat a healthy diet with consistent meals, to maintain adequate hydration, and to keep their caffeine intake low or at least consistent, although these teachings are predominantly based on limited studies with extrapolation from nutrition research.

D IS FOR DIARY

A headache diary is a recommended part of headache management and may enhance the accuracy of diagnosis and assist in treatment modifications. Paper and electronic diaries have been used. Electronic diaries may be more accurate for real-time use, but patients may be more likely to complete a paper one.⁶⁷ Patients prefer electronic diaries over long paper forms,⁶⁸ but a practical issue to consider is easy electronic access.

Patients can start keeping a headache diary before the initial consultation to assist with diagnosis, or early in their management. A first-appointment diary mailed with instructions is a feasible option.⁶⁹ These types of diaries ask detailed questions to help diagnose all major primary headache types including menstrual migraine and to identify concomitant medication-overuse headache. Physicians and patients generally report improved communication with use of a diary.⁷⁰

Some providers distinguish between a headache diary and a calendar. In standard practice, a headache diary is the general term referring to both, but the literature differentiates between the two. Both should at least include headache frequency, with possible inclusion of other factors such as headache duration, headache intensity, analgesic use, headache impact on function, and absenteeism. Potential triggers including menses can also be tracked. The calendar version can fit on a single page and can be used for simple tracking of headache frequency and analgesia use.

One of the simplest calendars to use is the “stoplight” calendar. Red days are when a patient is completely debilitated in bed. On a yellow day, function at work, school, or daily activities is significantly reduced by migraine, but the patient is not bedbound. A green day is when headache is present but function is not affected. No color is placed if the patient is 100% headache-free.

Acute treatment use can be written in or, to improve compliance, a checkmark can be placed on days of treatment. Patients who are tracking menses circle the days of menstruation. The calendar-diary should be brought to every appointment to track treatment response and medication use.

THE SECOND S IS FOR STRESS

Behavioral management such as cognitive behavioral therapy in migraine has been shown to decrease catastrophizing, migraine disability, and headache severity and frequency.⁷⁴ Both depression and anxiety can improve along with migraine.⁷⁵ Cognitive behavioral therapy can be provided in individualized sessions or group sessions, either in person or online.^74,76,77 The effects become more prominent about 5 weeks into treatment.⁷⁸

Biofeedback, which uses behavioral techniques paired with physiologic autonomic measures, has been extensively studied, and shows benefit in migraine, including in meta-analysis.⁷⁹ The types of biofeedback measurements used include electromyography, electroencephalography, temperature, sweat sensors, heart rate, blood volume pulse feedback, and respiration bands. While biofeedback is generally done under the guidance of a therapist, it can still be useful with minimal therapist contact and supplemental audio.⁸⁰

Mindfulness, or the awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations in the present moment without judgment, is a behavioral technique that can be done alone or paired with another technique. It is often taught through a mindfulness-based stress-reduction  program, which relies on a standardized approach. A meta-analysis showed that mindfulness improves pain intensity, headache frequency, disability, self-efficacy, and quality of life.⁸¹ It may work by encouraging pain acceptance.⁸²

Relaxation techniques are also employed in migraine management, either alone or in conjunction with techniques mentioned  above, such as mindfulness. They include progressive muscle relaxation and deep breathing. Relaxation has been shown to be effective when done by professional trainers as well as lay trainers in both individual and group settings.^83,84

In patients with intractable headache, more-intensive inpatient and outpatient programs have been tried. Inpatient admissions with multidisciplinary programs that include a focus on behavioral techniques often paired with lifestyle education and sometimes pharmacologic management can be beneficial.^85,86 These programs have also been successfully conducted as multiple outpatient sessions.^86–88

Stress management is an important aspect of migraine management. These treatments often involve homework and require active participation.

LIFESTYLE FOR ALL

All patients with migraine should initiate lifestyle modifications (see Advice to patients with migraine: SEEDS for success). Modifications with the highest level of evidence, specifically behavioral techniques, have had the most reproducible results. A headache diary is an essential tool to identify patterns and needs for optimization of acute or preventive treatment regimens. The strongest evidence is for the behavioral management techniques for stress reduction.

Lyme disease is a complex multisystem bacterial infection affecting the skin, joints, heart, and nervous system. The full spectrum of disease was first recognized and the disease was named in the 1970s during an outbreak of arthritis in children in the town of Lyme, Connecticut.¹

This review describes the epidemiology and pathogenesis of Lyme disease, the advantages and disadvantages of current diagnostic methods, and diagnostic algorithms.

THE MOST COMMON TICK-BORNE INFECTION IN NORTH AMERICA

Lyme disease is the most common tick-borne infection in North America.^2,3 In the United States, more than 30,000 cases are reported annually. In fact, in 2017, the number of cases was about 42,000, a 16% increase from the previous year, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

From Sigal LH. Myths and facts about Lyme disease. Cleve Clin J Med 1997; 64(4):203–209.

The infection is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, a particularly arthritogenic spirochete transmitted by Ixodes scapularis (the black-legged deer tick, (Figure 1) and Ixodes pacificus (the Western black-legged tick). Although the infection can occur at any time of the year, its peak incidence is in May to late September, coinciding with increased outdoor recreational activity in areas where ticks live.^3,4 The typical tick habitat consists of deciduous woodland with sufficient humidity provided by a good layer of decaying vegetation. However, people can contract Lyme disease in their own backyard.³

Most cases of Lyme disease are seen in the northeastern United States, mainly in suburban and rural areas.^2,3 Other areas affected include the midwestern states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as well as northern California.⁴ Fourteen states and the District of Columbia report a high average incidence (> 10 cases per 100,000 persons) (Table 1).²

FIRST COMES IgM, THEN IgG

The pathogenesis and the different stages of infection should inform laboratory testing in Lyme disease.

It is estimated that only 5% of infected ticks that bite people actually transmit their spirochetes to the human host.⁵ However, once infected, the patient’s innate immune system mounts a response that results in the classic erythema migrans rash at the bite site. A rash develops in only about 85% of patients who are infected and can appear at any time between 3 and 30 days, but most commonly after 7 days. Hence, a rash occurring within the first few hours of tick contact is not erythema migrans and does not indicate infection, but rather an early reaction to tick salivary antigens.⁵

Antibody levels remain below the detection limits of currently available serologic tests in the first 7 days after exposure. Immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody titers peak between 8 and 14 days after tick contact, but IgM antibodies may never develop if the patient is started on early appropriate antimicrobial therapy.⁵

If the infection is not treated, the spirochete may disseminate through the blood from the bite site to different tissues.³ Both cell-mediated and antibody-mediated immunity swing into action to kill the spirochetes at this stage. The IgM antibody response occurs in 1 to 2 weeks, followed by a robust IgG response in 2 to 4 weeks.⁶

Because IgM can also cross-react with antigens other than those associated with B burgdorferi, the IgM test is less specific than the IgG test for Lyme disease.

Once a patient is exposed and mounts an antibody-mediated response to the spirochete, the antibody profile may persist for months to years, even after successful antibiotic treatment and cure of the disease.⁵

Despite the immune system’s robust series of defenses, untreated B burgdorferi infection can persist, as the organism has a bag of tricks to evade destruction. It can decrease its expression of specific immunogenic surface-exposed proteins, change its antigenic properties through recombination, and bind to the patient’s extracellular matrix proteins to facilitate further dissemination.³

Certain host-genetic factors also play a role in the pathogenesis of Lyme disease, such as the HLA-DR4 allele, which has been associated with antibiotic-refractory Lyme-related arthritis.³

LYME DISEASE EVOLVES THROUGH STAGES

Lyme disease evolves through stages broadly classified as early and late infection, with significant variability in its presentation.⁷

Early infection

Early disease is further subdivided into “localized” infection (stage 1), characterized by a single erythema migrans lesion and local lymphadenopathy, and “disseminated” infection (stage 2), associated with multiple erythema migrans lesions distant from the bite site, facial nerve palsy, radiculoneuritis, meningitis, carditis, or migratory arthritis or arthralgia.⁸

Highly specific physical findings include erythema migrans, cranial nerve palsy, high-grade or progressive conduction block, and recurrent migratory polyarthritis. Less specific symptoms and signs of Lyme disease include arthralgia, myalgia, neck stiffness, palpitations, and myocarditis.⁵

Erythema migrans lesions are evident in at least 85% of patients with early disease.⁹ If they are not apparent on physical examination, they may be located at hidden sites and may be atypical in appearance or transient.⁵

If treatment is not started in the initial stage of the disease, 60% of infected patients may develop disseminated infection.⁵ Progressive, untreated infection can manifest with Lyme arthritis and neuroborreliosis.⁷

Noncutaneous manifestations are less common now than in the past due to increased awareness of the disease and early initiation of treatment.¹⁰

Late infection

Manifestations of late (stage 3) infection include oligoarthritis (affecting any joint but often the knee) and neuroborreliosis. Clinical signs and symptoms of Lyme disease may take months to resolve even after appropriate antimicrobial therapy is completed. This should not be interpreted as ongoing, persistent infection, but as related to host immune-mediated activity.⁵

 

 

INTERPRET LABORATORY RESULTS BASED ON PRETEST PROBABILITY

The usefulness of a laboratory test depends on the individual patient’s pretest probability of infection, which in turn depends on the patient’s epidemiologic risk of exposure and clinical features of Lyme disease. Patients with a high pretest probability—eg, a history of a tick bite followed by the classic erythema migrans rash—do not need testing and can start antimicrobial therapy right away.¹¹

Serologic tests are the gold standard

Prompt diagnosis is important, as early Lyme disease is easily treatable without any future sequelae.¹¹

Tests for Lyme disease can be divided into direct methods, which detect the spirochete itself by culture or by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and indirect methods, which detect antibodies (Table 2). Direct tests lack sensitivity for Lyme disease; hence, serologic tests remain the gold standard. Currently recommended is a standard 2-tier testing strategy using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) followed by Western blot for confirmation.

DIRECT METHODS

Culture lacks sensitivity

A number of factors limit the sensitivity of direct culture for diagnosing Lyme disease. B burgdorferi does not grow easily in culture, requiring special media, low temperatures, and long periods of incubation. Only a relatively few spirochetes are present in human tissues and body fluids to begin with, and bacterial counts are further reduced with duration and dissemination of infection.⁵ All of these limit the possibility of detecting this organism.

Polymerase chain reaction may help in some situations

Molecular assays are not part of the standard evaluation and should be used only in conjunction with serologic testing.⁷ These tests have high specificity but lack consistent sensitivity.

That said, PCR testing may be useful:

• In early infection, before antibody responses develop
• In reinfection, when serologic tests are not reliable because the antibodies persist for many years after an infection in many patients
• In endemic areas where serologic testing has high false-positive rates due to high baseline population seropositivity for anti-Borrelia antibodies caused by subclinical infection.³

PCR assays that target plasmid-borne genes encoding outer surface proteins A and C (OspA and OspC) and VisE (variable major protein-like sequence, expressed) are more sensitive than those that detect chromosomal 16s ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) genes, as plasmid-rich “blebs” are shed in larger concentrations than chromosomal DNA during active infection.⁷ However, these plasmid-contained genes persist in body tissues and fluids even after the infection is cleared, and their detection may not necessarily correlate with ongoing disease.⁸ Detection of chromosomal 16s rRNA genes is a better predictor of true organism viability.

The sensitivity of PCR for borrelial DNA depends on the type of sample. If a skin biopsy sample is taken of the leading edge of an erythema migrans lesion, the sensitivity is 69% and the specificity is 100%. In patients with Lyme arthritis, PCR of the synovial fluid has a sensitivity of up to 80%. However, the sensitivity of PCR of the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with neurologic manifestations of Lyme disease is only 19%.⁷ PCR of other clinical samples, including blood and urine, is not recommended, as spirochetes are primarily confined to tissues, and very few are present in these body fluids.^3,12

The disadvantage of PCR is that a positive result does not always mean active infection, as the DNA of the dead microbe persists for several months even after successful treatment.⁸

INDIRECT METHODS

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

ELISAs detect anti-Borrelia antibodies. Early-generation ELISAs, still used in many laboratories, use whole-cell extracts of B burgdorferi. Examples are the Vidas Lyme screen (Biomérieux, biomerieux-usa.com) and the Wampole B burgdorferi IgG/M EIA II assay (Alere, www.alere.com). Newer ELISAs use recombinant proteins.¹³

Three major targets for ELISA antibodies are flagellin (Fla), outer surface protein C (OspC), and VisE, especially the invariable region 6 (IR6). Among these, VisE-IR6 is the most conserved region in B burgdorferi.

Early-generation assays have a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 72%.¹¹ However, the patient’s serum may have antibodies that cross-react with unrelated bacterial antigens, leading to false-positive results (Table 3). Whole-cell sonicate assays are not recommended as an independent test and must be confirmed with Western blot testing when assay results are indeterminate or positive.¹¹

Newer-generation ELISAs detect antibodies targeting recombinant proteins of VisE, especially a synthetic peptide C6, within IR6.¹³ VisE-IR6 is the most conserved region of the B burgdorferi complex, and its detection is a highly specific finding, supporting the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Antibodies against VisE-IR6 antigen are the earliest to develop.⁵ An example of a newer-generation serologic test is the VisE C6 Lyme EIA kit, approved as a first-tier test by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2001. This test has a specificity of 99%,^14,15 and its specificity is further increased when used in conjunction with Western blot (99.5%).¹⁵ The advantage of the C6 antibody test is that it is more sensitive than 2-tier testing during early infection (sensitivity 29%–74% vs 17%–40% in early localized infection, and 56%–90% vs 27%–78% in early disseminated infection).⁶

During early infection, older and newer ELISAs are less sensitive because of the limited number of antigens expressed at this stage.¹³ All patients suspected of having early Lyme disease who are seronegative at initial testing should have follow-up testing to look for seroconversion.¹³

Western blot

Western blot (immunoblot) testing identifies IgM and IgG antibodies against specific B burgdorferi antigens. It is considered positive if it detects at least 2 of a possible 3 specific IgM bands in the first 4 weeks of disease or at least 5 of 10 specific IgG bands after 4 weeks of disease (Table 4 and Figure 2).¹⁶

The nature of the bands indicates the duration of infection: Western blot bands against 23-kD OspC and 41-kD FlaB are seen in early localized infection, whereas bands against all 3 B burgdorferi proteins will be seen after several weeks of disease.¹⁷ The IgM result should be interpreted carefully, as only 2 bands are required for the test to be positive, and IgM binds to antigen less specifically than IgG.¹²

 

 

Interpreting the IgM Western blot test: The ‘1-month rule’

If clinical symptoms and signs of Lyme disease have been present for more than 1 month, IgM reactivity alone should not be used to support the diagnosis, in view of the likelihood of a false-positive test result in this situation.¹⁸ This is called the “1-month rule” in the diagnosis of Lyme disease.¹³

In early localized infection, Western blot is only half as sensitive as ELISA testing. Since the overall sensitivity of a 2-step algorithm is equal to that of its least sensitive component, 2-tiered testing is not useful in early disease.¹³

Although currently considered the most specific test for confirmation of Lyme disease, Western blot has limitations. It is technically and interpretively complex and is thus not universally available.¹³ The blots are scored by visual examination, compromising the reproducibility of the test, although densitometric blot analysis techniques and automated scanning and scoring attempt to address some of these limitations.¹³ Like the ELISA, Western blot can have false-positive results in healthy individuals without tick exposure, as nonspecific IgM immunoblots develop faint bands. This is because of cross-reaction between B burgdorferi antigens and antigens from other microorganisms. Around 50% of healthy adults show low-level serum IgG reactivity against the FlaB antigen, leading to false-positive results as well. In cases in which the Western blot result is indeterminate, other etiologies must be considered.

False-positive IgM Western blots are a significant problem. In a 5-year retrospective study done at 63 US Air Force healthcare facilities, 113 (53.3%) of 212 IgM Western blots were falsely positive.¹⁹ A false-positive test was defined as one that failed to meet seropositivity (a first-tier test omitted or negative, > 30 days of symptoms with negative IgG blot), lack of exposure including residing in areas without documented tick habitats, patients having atypical or no symptoms, and negative serology within 30 days of a positive test.

In a similar study done in a highly endemic area, 50 (27.5%) of 182 patients had a false-positive test.²⁰ Physicians need to be careful when interpreting IgM Western blots. It is always important to consider locale, epidemiology, and symptoms when interpreting the test.

Limitations of serologic tests for Lyme disease

Currently available serologic tests have inherent limitations:

• Antibodies against B burgdorferi take at least 1 week to develop
• The background rate of seropositivity in endemic areas can be up to 4%, affecting the utility of a positive test result
• Serologic tests cannot be used as tests of cure because antibodies can persist for months to years even after appropriate antimicrobial therapy and cure of disease; thus, a positive serologic result could represent active infection or remote exposure²¹
• Antibodies can cross-react with related bacteria, including other borrelial or treponemal spirochetes
• False-positive serologic test results can also occur in association with other medical conditions such as polyclonal gammopathies and systemic lupus erythematosus.¹²

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TESTING

Standard 2-tier testing

The CDC released recommendations for diagnosing Lyme disease after a second national conference of serologic diagnosis of Lyme disease in October 1994.¹⁸ The 2-tiered testing method, involving a sensitive ELISA followed by the Western blot to confirm positive and indeterminate ELISA results, was suggested as the gold standard for diagnosis (Figure 3). Of note, negative ELISA results do not require further testing.¹¹

The sensitivity of 2-tiered testing depends on the stage of the disease. Unfortunately, this method has a wide range of sensitivity (17% to 78%) in stage 1 disease. In the same stage, the sensitivity increases from 14.1% in patients with a single erythema migrans lesion and early localized infection to 65.4% in those with multiple lesions. The algorithm has excellent sensitivity in late stage 3 infection (96% to 100%).⁵

A 2-step ELISA algorithm

A 2-step ELISA algorithm (without the Western blot) that includes the whole-cell sonicate assay followed by the VisE C6 peptide assay actually showed higher sensitivity and comparable specificity compared with 2-tiered testing in early localized disease (sensitivity 61%–74% vs 29%–48%, respectively; specificity 99.5% for both methods).²² This higher sensitivity was even more pronounced in early disseminated infection (sensitivity 100% vs 40%, respectively). By late infection, the sensitivities of both testing strategies reached 100%. Compared with the Western blot, the 2-step ELISA algorithm was simpler to execute in a reproducible fashion.⁵

The Infectious Diseases Society of America is revising its current guidelines, with an update expected late this year, which may shift the recommendation from 2-tiered testing to the 2-step ELISA algorithm.

Multiplex testing

To overcome the intrinsic problems of protein-based assays, a multiplexed, array-based assay for the diagnosis of tick-borne infections called Tick-Borne Disease Serochip (TBD-Serochip) was established using recombinant antigens that identify key immunodominant epitopes.⁸ More studies are needed to establish the validity and usefulness of these tests in clinical practice.

Who should not be tested?

The American College of Physicians⁶ recommends against testing in patients:

• Presenting with nonspecific symptoms (eg, headache, myalgia, fatigue, arthralgia) without objective signs of Lyme disease
• With low pretest probability of infection based on epidemiologic exposures and clinical features
• Living in Lyme-endemic areas with no history of tick exposure⁶
• Presenting less than 1 week after tick exposure⁵
• Seeking a test of cure for treated Lyme disease.

DIAGNOSIS IN SPECIAL SITUATIONS

Early Lyme disease

The classic erythema migrans lesion on physical examination of a patient with suspected Lyme disease is diagnostic and does not require laboratory confirmation.¹⁰

In ambiguous cases, 2-tiered testing of a serum sample during the acute presentation and again 4 to 6 weeks later can be useful. In patients who remain seronegative on paired serum samples despite symptoms lasting longer than 6 weeks and no antibiotic treatment in the interim, the diagnosis of Lyme disease is unlikely, and another diagnosis should be sought.³

Antimicrobial therapy may block the serologic response; hence, negative serologic testing in patients started on empiric antibiotics should not rule out Lyme disease.⁶

PCR or bacterial culture testing is not recommended in the evaluation of suspected early Lyme disease.

Central nervous system Lyme disease

Central nervous system Lyme disease is diagnosed by 2-tiered testing using peripheral blood samples because all patients with this infectious manifestation should have mounted an adequate IgG response in the blood.¹¹

B cells migrate to and proliferate inside the central nervous system, leading to intrathecal production of anti-Borrelia antibodies. An index of cerebrospinal fluid to serum antibody greater than 1 is thus also indicative of neuroborreliosis.¹² Thus, performing lumbar puncture to detect intrathecal production of antibodies may support the diagnosis of central nervous system Lyme disease; however, it is not necessary.¹¹

Antibodies persist in the central nervous system for many years after appropriate antimicrobial treatment.

Lyme arthritis

Articular involvement in Lyme disease is characterized by a robust humoral response such that a negative IgG serologic test virtually rules out Lyme arthritis.²³ PCR testing of synovial fluid for borrelial DNA has a sensitivity of 80% but may become falsely negative after 1 to 2 months of antibiotic treatment.^24,25 In an algorithm suggested by Puius et al,²³ PCR testing of synovial fluid should be done in patients who have minimal to no response after 2 months of appropriate oral antimicrobial therapy to determine whether intravenous antibiotics are merited.

Table 5 summarizes the tests of choice in different clinical stages of infection.

Acknowledgment: The authors would like to acknowledge Anita Modi, MD, and Ceena N. Jacob, MD, for reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions, and Belinda Yen-Lieberman, PhD, for contributing pictures of the Western blot test results.

Lyme disease is a complex multisystem bacterial infection affecting the skin, joints, heart, and nervous system. The full spectrum of disease was first recognized and the disease was named in the 1970s during an outbreak of arthritis in children in the town of Lyme, Connecticut.¹

This review describes the epidemiology and pathogenesis of Lyme disease, the advantages and disadvantages of current diagnostic methods, and diagnostic algorithms.

THE MOST COMMON TICK-BORNE INFECTION IN NORTH AMERICA

Lyme disease is the most common tick-borne infection in North America.^2,3 In the United States, more than 30,000 cases are reported annually. In fact, in 2017, the number of cases was about 42,000, a 16% increase from the previous year, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

From Sigal LH. Myths and facts about Lyme disease. Cleve Clin J Med 1997; 64(4):203–209.

The infection is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, a particularly arthritogenic spirochete transmitted by Ixodes scapularis (the black-legged deer tick, (Figure 1) and Ixodes pacificus (the Western black-legged tick). Although the infection can occur at any time of the year, its peak incidence is in May to late September, coinciding with increased outdoor recreational activity in areas where ticks live.^3,4 The typical tick habitat consists of deciduous woodland with sufficient humidity provided by a good layer of decaying vegetation. However, people can contract Lyme disease in their own backyard.³

Most cases of Lyme disease are seen in the northeastern United States, mainly in suburban and rural areas.^2,3 Other areas affected include the midwestern states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as well as northern California.⁴ Fourteen states and the District of Columbia report a high average incidence (> 10 cases per 100,000 persons) (Table 1).²

FIRST COMES IgM, THEN IgG

The pathogenesis and the different stages of infection should inform laboratory testing in Lyme disease.

It is estimated that only 5% of infected ticks that bite people actually transmit their spirochetes to the human host.⁵ However, once infected, the patient’s innate immune system mounts a response that results in the classic erythema migrans rash at the bite site. A rash develops in only about 85% of patients who are infected and can appear at any time between 3 and 30 days, but most commonly after 7 days. Hence, a rash occurring within the first few hours of tick contact is not erythema migrans and does not indicate infection, but rather an early reaction to tick salivary antigens.⁵

Antibody levels remain below the detection limits of currently available serologic tests in the first 7 days after exposure. Immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody titers peak between 8 and 14 days after tick contact, but IgM antibodies may never develop if the patient is started on early appropriate antimicrobial therapy.⁵

If the infection is not treated, the spirochete may disseminate through the blood from the bite site to different tissues.³ Both cell-mediated and antibody-mediated immunity swing into action to kill the spirochetes at this stage. The IgM antibody response occurs in 1 to 2 weeks, followed by a robust IgG response in 2 to 4 weeks.⁶

Because IgM can also cross-react with antigens other than those associated with B burgdorferi, the IgM test is less specific than the IgG test for Lyme disease.

Once a patient is exposed and mounts an antibody-mediated response to the spirochete, the antibody profile may persist for months to years, even after successful antibiotic treatment and cure of the disease.⁵

Despite the immune system’s robust series of defenses, untreated B burgdorferi infection can persist, as the organism has a bag of tricks to evade destruction. It can decrease its expression of specific immunogenic surface-exposed proteins, change its antigenic properties through recombination, and bind to the patient’s extracellular matrix proteins to facilitate further dissemination.³

Certain host-genetic factors also play a role in the pathogenesis of Lyme disease, such as the HLA-DR4 allele, which has been associated with antibiotic-refractory Lyme-related arthritis.³

LYME DISEASE EVOLVES THROUGH STAGES

Lyme disease evolves through stages broadly classified as early and late infection, with significant variability in its presentation.⁷

Early infection

Early disease is further subdivided into “localized” infection (stage 1), characterized by a single erythema migrans lesion and local lymphadenopathy, and “disseminated” infection (stage 2), associated with multiple erythema migrans lesions distant from the bite site, facial nerve palsy, radiculoneuritis, meningitis, carditis, or migratory arthritis or arthralgia.⁸

Highly specific physical findings include erythema migrans, cranial nerve palsy, high-grade or progressive conduction block, and recurrent migratory polyarthritis. Less specific symptoms and signs of Lyme disease include arthralgia, myalgia, neck stiffness, palpitations, and myocarditis.⁵

Erythema migrans lesions are evident in at least 85% of patients with early disease.⁹ If they are not apparent on physical examination, they may be located at hidden sites and may be atypical in appearance or transient.⁵

If treatment is not started in the initial stage of the disease, 60% of infected patients may develop disseminated infection.⁵ Progressive, untreated infection can manifest with Lyme arthritis and neuroborreliosis.⁷

Noncutaneous manifestations are less common now than in the past due to increased awareness of the disease and early initiation of treatment.¹⁰

Late infection

Manifestations of late (stage 3) infection include oligoarthritis (affecting any joint but often the knee) and neuroborreliosis. Clinical signs and symptoms of Lyme disease may take months to resolve even after appropriate antimicrobial therapy is completed. This should not be interpreted as ongoing, persistent infection, but as related to host immune-mediated activity.⁵

 

 

INTERPRET LABORATORY RESULTS BASED ON PRETEST PROBABILITY

The usefulness of a laboratory test depends on the individual patient’s pretest probability of infection, which in turn depends on the patient’s epidemiologic risk of exposure and clinical features of Lyme disease. Patients with a high pretest probability—eg, a history of a tick bite followed by the classic erythema migrans rash—do not need testing and can start antimicrobial therapy right away.¹¹

Serologic tests are the gold standard

Prompt diagnosis is important, as early Lyme disease is easily treatable without any future sequelae.¹¹

Tests for Lyme disease can be divided into direct methods, which detect the spirochete itself by culture or by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and indirect methods, which detect antibodies (Table 2). Direct tests lack sensitivity for Lyme disease; hence, serologic tests remain the gold standard. Currently recommended is a standard 2-tier testing strategy using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) followed by Western blot for confirmation.

DIRECT METHODS

Culture lacks sensitivity

A number of factors limit the sensitivity of direct culture for diagnosing Lyme disease. B burgdorferi does not grow easily in culture, requiring special media, low temperatures, and long periods of incubation. Only a relatively few spirochetes are present in human tissues and body fluids to begin with, and bacterial counts are further reduced with duration and dissemination of infection.⁵ All of these limit the possibility of detecting this organism.

Polymerase chain reaction may help in some situations

Molecular assays are not part of the standard evaluation and should be used only in conjunction with serologic testing.⁷ These tests have high specificity but lack consistent sensitivity.

That said, PCR testing may be useful:

• In early infection, before antibody responses develop
• In reinfection, when serologic tests are not reliable because the antibodies persist for many years after an infection in many patients
• In endemic areas where serologic testing has high false-positive rates due to high baseline population seropositivity for anti-Borrelia antibodies caused by subclinical infection.³

PCR assays that target plasmid-borne genes encoding outer surface proteins A and C (OspA and OspC) and VisE (variable major protein-like sequence, expressed) are more sensitive than those that detect chromosomal 16s ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) genes, as plasmid-rich “blebs” are shed in larger concentrations than chromosomal DNA during active infection.⁷ However, these plasmid-contained genes persist in body tissues and fluids even after the infection is cleared, and their detection may not necessarily correlate with ongoing disease.⁸ Detection of chromosomal 16s rRNA genes is a better predictor of true organism viability.

The sensitivity of PCR for borrelial DNA depends on the type of sample. If a skin biopsy sample is taken of the leading edge of an erythema migrans lesion, the sensitivity is 69% and the specificity is 100%. In patients with Lyme arthritis, PCR of the synovial fluid has a sensitivity of up to 80%. However, the sensitivity of PCR of the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with neurologic manifestations of Lyme disease is only 19%.⁷ PCR of other clinical samples, including blood and urine, is not recommended, as spirochetes are primarily confined to tissues, and very few are present in these body fluids.^3,12

The disadvantage of PCR is that a positive result does not always mean active infection, as the DNA of the dead microbe persists for several months even after successful treatment.⁸

INDIRECT METHODS

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

ELISAs detect anti-Borrelia antibodies. Early-generation ELISAs, still used in many laboratories, use whole-cell extracts of B burgdorferi. Examples are the Vidas Lyme screen (Biomérieux, biomerieux-usa.com) and the Wampole B burgdorferi IgG/M EIA II assay (Alere, www.alere.com). Newer ELISAs use recombinant proteins.¹³

Three major targets for ELISA antibodies are flagellin (Fla), outer surface protein C (OspC), and VisE, especially the invariable region 6 (IR6). Among these, VisE-IR6 is the most conserved region in B burgdorferi.

Early-generation assays have a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 72%.¹¹ However, the patient’s serum may have antibodies that cross-react with unrelated bacterial antigens, leading to false-positive results (Table 3). Whole-cell sonicate assays are not recommended as an independent test and must be confirmed with Western blot testing when assay results are indeterminate or positive.¹¹

Newer-generation ELISAs detect antibodies targeting recombinant proteins of VisE, especially a synthetic peptide C6, within IR6.¹³ VisE-IR6 is the most conserved region of the B burgdorferi complex, and its detection is a highly specific finding, supporting the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Antibodies against VisE-IR6 antigen are the earliest to develop.⁵ An example of a newer-generation serologic test is the VisE C6 Lyme EIA kit, approved as a first-tier test by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2001. This test has a specificity of 99%,^14,15 and its specificity is further increased when used in conjunction with Western blot (99.5%).¹⁵ The advantage of the C6 antibody test is that it is more sensitive than 2-tier testing during early infection (sensitivity 29%–74% vs 17%–40% in early localized infection, and 56%–90% vs 27%–78% in early disseminated infection).⁶

During early infection, older and newer ELISAs are less sensitive because of the limited number of antigens expressed at this stage.¹³ All patients suspected of having early Lyme disease who are seronegative at initial testing should have follow-up testing to look for seroconversion.¹³

Western blot

Western blot (immunoblot) testing identifies IgM and IgG antibodies against specific B burgdorferi antigens. It is considered positive if it detects at least 2 of a possible 3 specific IgM bands in the first 4 weeks of disease or at least 5 of 10 specific IgG bands after 4 weeks of disease (Table 4 and Figure 2).¹⁶

The nature of the bands indicates the duration of infection: Western blot bands against 23-kD OspC and 41-kD FlaB are seen in early localized infection, whereas bands against all 3 B burgdorferi proteins will be seen after several weeks of disease.¹⁷ The IgM result should be interpreted carefully, as only 2 bands are required for the test to be positive, and IgM binds to antigen less specifically than IgG.¹²

 

 

Interpreting the IgM Western blot test: The ‘1-month rule’

If clinical symptoms and signs of Lyme disease have been present for more than 1 month, IgM reactivity alone should not be used to support the diagnosis, in view of the likelihood of a false-positive test result in this situation.¹⁸ This is called the “1-month rule” in the diagnosis of Lyme disease.¹³

In early localized infection, Western blot is only half as sensitive as ELISA testing. Since the overall sensitivity of a 2-step algorithm is equal to that of its least sensitive component, 2-tiered testing is not useful in early disease.¹³

Although currently considered the most specific test for confirmation of Lyme disease, Western blot has limitations. It is technically and interpretively complex and is thus not universally available.¹³ The blots are scored by visual examination, compromising the reproducibility of the test, although densitometric blot analysis techniques and automated scanning and scoring attempt to address some of these limitations.¹³ Like the ELISA, Western blot can have false-positive results in healthy individuals without tick exposure, as nonspecific IgM immunoblots develop faint bands. This is because of cross-reaction between B burgdorferi antigens and antigens from other microorganisms. Around 50% of healthy adults show low-level serum IgG reactivity against the FlaB antigen, leading to false-positive results as well. In cases in which the Western blot result is indeterminate, other etiologies must be considered.

False-positive IgM Western blots are a significant problem. In a 5-year retrospective study done at 63 US Air Force healthcare facilities, 113 (53.3%) of 212 IgM Western blots were falsely positive.¹⁹ A false-positive test was defined as one that failed to meet seropositivity (a first-tier test omitted or negative, > 30 days of symptoms with negative IgG blot), lack of exposure including residing in areas without documented tick habitats, patients having atypical or no symptoms, and negative serology within 30 days of a positive test.

In a similar study done in a highly endemic area, 50 (27.5%) of 182 patients had a false-positive test.²⁰ Physicians need to be careful when interpreting IgM Western blots. It is always important to consider locale, epidemiology, and symptoms when interpreting the test.

Limitations of serologic tests for Lyme disease

Currently available serologic tests have inherent limitations:

• Antibodies against B burgdorferi take at least 1 week to develop
• The background rate of seropositivity in endemic areas can be up to 4%, affecting the utility of a positive test result
• Serologic tests cannot be used as tests of cure because antibodies can persist for months to years even after appropriate antimicrobial therapy and cure of disease; thus, a positive serologic result could represent active infection or remote exposure²¹
• Antibodies can cross-react with related bacteria, including other borrelial or treponemal spirochetes
• False-positive serologic test results can also occur in association with other medical conditions such as polyclonal gammopathies and systemic lupus erythematosus.¹²

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TESTING

Standard 2-tier testing

The CDC released recommendations for diagnosing Lyme disease after a second national conference of serologic diagnosis of Lyme disease in October 1994.¹⁸ The 2-tiered testing method, involving a sensitive ELISA followed by the Western blot to confirm positive and indeterminate ELISA results, was suggested as the gold standard for diagnosis (Figure 3). Of note, negative ELISA results do not require further testing.¹¹

The sensitivity of 2-tiered testing depends on the stage of the disease. Unfortunately, this method has a wide range of sensitivity (17% to 78%) in stage 1 disease. In the same stage, the sensitivity increases from 14.1% in patients with a single erythema migrans lesion and early localized infection to 65.4% in those with multiple lesions. The algorithm has excellent sensitivity in late stage 3 infection (96% to 100%).⁵

A 2-step ELISA algorithm

A 2-step ELISA algorithm (without the Western blot) that includes the whole-cell sonicate assay followed by the VisE C6 peptide assay actually showed higher sensitivity and comparable specificity compared with 2-tiered testing in early localized disease (sensitivity 61%–74% vs 29%–48%, respectively; specificity 99.5% for both methods).²² This higher sensitivity was even more pronounced in early disseminated infection (sensitivity 100% vs 40%, respectively). By late infection, the sensitivities of both testing strategies reached 100%. Compared with the Western blot, the 2-step ELISA algorithm was simpler to execute in a reproducible fashion.⁵

The Infectious Diseases Society of America is revising its current guidelines, with an update expected late this year, which may shift the recommendation from 2-tiered testing to the 2-step ELISA algorithm.

Multiplex testing

To overcome the intrinsic problems of protein-based assays, a multiplexed, array-based assay for the diagnosis of tick-borne infections called Tick-Borne Disease Serochip (TBD-Serochip) was established using recombinant antigens that identify key immunodominant epitopes.⁸ More studies are needed to establish the validity and usefulness of these tests in clinical practice.

Who should not be tested?

The American College of Physicians⁶ recommends against testing in patients:

• Presenting with nonspecific symptoms (eg, headache, myalgia, fatigue, arthralgia) without objective signs of Lyme disease
• With low pretest probability of infection based on epidemiologic exposures and clinical features
• Living in Lyme-endemic areas with no history of tick exposure⁶
• Presenting less than 1 week after tick exposure⁵
• Seeking a test of cure for treated Lyme disease.

DIAGNOSIS IN SPECIAL SITUATIONS

Early Lyme disease

The classic erythema migrans lesion on physical examination of a patient with suspected Lyme disease is diagnostic and does not require laboratory confirmation.¹⁰

In ambiguous cases, 2-tiered testing of a serum sample during the acute presentation and again 4 to 6 weeks later can be useful. In patients who remain seronegative on paired serum samples despite symptoms lasting longer than 6 weeks and no antibiotic treatment in the interim, the diagnosis of Lyme disease is unlikely, and another diagnosis should be sought.³

Antimicrobial therapy may block the serologic response; hence, negative serologic testing in patients started on empiric antibiotics should not rule out Lyme disease.⁶

PCR or bacterial culture testing is not recommended in the evaluation of suspected early Lyme disease.

Central nervous system Lyme disease

Central nervous system Lyme disease is diagnosed by 2-tiered testing using peripheral blood samples because all patients with this infectious manifestation should have mounted an adequate IgG response in the blood.¹¹

B cells migrate to and proliferate inside the central nervous system, leading to intrathecal production of anti-Borrelia antibodies. An index of cerebrospinal fluid to serum antibody greater than 1 is thus also indicative of neuroborreliosis.¹² Thus, performing lumbar puncture to detect intrathecal production of antibodies may support the diagnosis of central nervous system Lyme disease; however, it is not necessary.¹¹

Antibodies persist in the central nervous system for many years after appropriate antimicrobial treatment.

Lyme arthritis

Articular involvement in Lyme disease is characterized by a robust humoral response such that a negative IgG serologic test virtually rules out Lyme arthritis.²³ PCR testing of synovial fluid for borrelial DNA has a sensitivity of 80% but may become falsely negative after 1 to 2 months of antibiotic treatment.^24,25 In an algorithm suggested by Puius et al,²³ PCR testing of synovial fluid should be done in patients who have minimal to no response after 2 months of appropriate oral antimicrobial therapy to determine whether intravenous antibiotics are merited.

Table 5 summarizes the tests of choice in different clinical stages of infection.

Acknowledgment: The authors would like to acknowledge Anita Modi, MD, and Ceena N. Jacob, MD, for reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions, and Belinda Yen-Lieberman, PhD, for contributing pictures of the Western blot test results.

Lyme disease is a complex multisystem bacterial infection affecting the skin, joints, heart, and nervous system. The full spectrum of disease was first recognized and the disease was named in the 1970s during an outbreak of arthritis in children in the town of Lyme, Connecticut.¹

This review describes the epidemiology and pathogenesis of Lyme disease, the advantages and disadvantages of current diagnostic methods, and diagnostic algorithms.

THE MOST COMMON TICK-BORNE INFECTION IN NORTH AMERICA

Lyme disease is the most common tick-borne infection in North America.^2,3 In the United States, more than 30,000 cases are reported annually. In fact, in 2017, the number of cases was about 42,000, a 16% increase from the previous year, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

From Sigal LH. Myths and facts about Lyme disease. Cleve Clin J Med 1997; 64(4):203–209.

The infection is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, a particularly arthritogenic spirochete transmitted by Ixodes scapularis (the black-legged deer tick, (Figure 1) and Ixodes pacificus (the Western black-legged tick). Although the infection can occur at any time of the year, its peak incidence is in May to late September, coinciding with increased outdoor recreational activity in areas where ticks live.^3,4 The typical tick habitat consists of deciduous woodland with sufficient humidity provided by a good layer of decaying vegetation. However, people can contract Lyme disease in their own backyard.³

Most cases of Lyme disease are seen in the northeastern United States, mainly in suburban and rural areas.^2,3 Other areas affected include the midwestern states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as well as northern California.⁴ Fourteen states and the District of Columbia report a high average incidence (> 10 cases per 100,000 persons) (Table 1).²

FIRST COMES IgM, THEN IgG

The pathogenesis and the different stages of infection should inform laboratory testing in Lyme disease.

It is estimated that only 5% of infected ticks that bite people actually transmit their spirochetes to the human host.⁵ However, once infected, the patient’s innate immune system mounts a response that results in the classic erythema migrans rash at the bite site. A rash develops in only about 85% of patients who are infected and can appear at any time between 3 and 30 days, but most commonly after 7 days. Hence, a rash occurring within the first few hours of tick contact is not erythema migrans and does not indicate infection, but rather an early reaction to tick salivary antigens.⁵

Antibody levels remain below the detection limits of currently available serologic tests in the first 7 days after exposure. Immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody titers peak between 8 and 14 days after tick contact, but IgM antibodies may never develop if the patient is started on early appropriate antimicrobial therapy.⁵

If the infection is not treated, the spirochete may disseminate through the blood from the bite site to different tissues.³ Both cell-mediated and antibody-mediated immunity swing into action to kill the spirochetes at this stage. The IgM antibody response occurs in 1 to 2 weeks, followed by a robust IgG response in 2 to 4 weeks.⁶

Because IgM can also cross-react with antigens other than those associated with B burgdorferi, the IgM test is less specific than the IgG test for Lyme disease.

Once a patient is exposed and mounts an antibody-mediated response to the spirochete, the antibody profile may persist for months to years, even after successful antibiotic treatment and cure of the disease.⁵

Despite the immune system’s robust series of defenses, untreated B burgdorferi infection can persist, as the organism has a bag of tricks to evade destruction. It can decrease its expression of specific immunogenic surface-exposed proteins, change its antigenic properties through recombination, and bind to the patient’s extracellular matrix proteins to facilitate further dissemination.³

Certain host-genetic factors also play a role in the pathogenesis of Lyme disease, such as the HLA-DR4 allele, which has been associated with antibiotic-refractory Lyme-related arthritis.³

LYME DISEASE EVOLVES THROUGH STAGES

Lyme disease evolves through stages broadly classified as early and late infection, with significant variability in its presentation.⁷

Early infection

Early disease is further subdivided into “localized” infection (stage 1), characterized by a single erythema migrans lesion and local lymphadenopathy, and “disseminated” infection (stage 2), associated with multiple erythema migrans lesions distant from the bite site, facial nerve palsy, radiculoneuritis, meningitis, carditis, or migratory arthritis or arthralgia.⁸

Highly specific physical findings include erythema migrans, cranial nerve palsy, high-grade or progressive conduction block, and recurrent migratory polyarthritis. Less specific symptoms and signs of Lyme disease include arthralgia, myalgia, neck stiffness, palpitations, and myocarditis.⁵

Erythema migrans lesions are evident in at least 85% of patients with early disease.⁹ If they are not apparent on physical examination, they may be located at hidden sites and may be atypical in appearance or transient.⁵

If treatment is not started in the initial stage of the disease, 60% of infected patients may develop disseminated infection.⁵ Progressive, untreated infection can manifest with Lyme arthritis and neuroborreliosis.⁷

Noncutaneous manifestations are less common now than in the past due to increased awareness of the disease and early initiation of treatment.¹⁰

Late infection

Manifestations of late (stage 3) infection include oligoarthritis (affecting any joint but often the knee) and neuroborreliosis. Clinical signs and symptoms of Lyme disease may take months to resolve even after appropriate antimicrobial therapy is completed. This should not be interpreted as ongoing, persistent infection, but as related to host immune-mediated activity.⁵

 

 

INTERPRET LABORATORY RESULTS BASED ON PRETEST PROBABILITY

The usefulness of a laboratory test depends on the individual patient’s pretest probability of infection, which in turn depends on the patient’s epidemiologic risk of exposure and clinical features of Lyme disease. Patients with a high pretest probability—eg, a history of a tick bite followed by the classic erythema migrans rash—do not need testing and can start antimicrobial therapy right away.¹¹

Serologic tests are the gold standard

Prompt diagnosis is important, as early Lyme disease is easily treatable without any future sequelae.¹¹

Tests for Lyme disease can be divided into direct methods, which detect the spirochete itself by culture or by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and indirect methods, which detect antibodies (Table 2). Direct tests lack sensitivity for Lyme disease; hence, serologic tests remain the gold standard. Currently recommended is a standard 2-tier testing strategy using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) followed by Western blot for confirmation.

DIRECT METHODS

Culture lacks sensitivity

A number of factors limit the sensitivity of direct culture for diagnosing Lyme disease. B burgdorferi does not grow easily in culture, requiring special media, low temperatures, and long periods of incubation. Only a relatively few spirochetes are present in human tissues and body fluids to begin with, and bacterial counts are further reduced with duration and dissemination of infection.⁵ All of these limit the possibility of detecting this organism.

Polymerase chain reaction may help in some situations

Molecular assays are not part of the standard evaluation and should be used only in conjunction with serologic testing.⁷ These tests have high specificity but lack consistent sensitivity.

That said, PCR testing may be useful:

• In early infection, before antibody responses develop
• In reinfection, when serologic tests are not reliable because the antibodies persist for many years after an infection in many patients
• In endemic areas where serologic testing has high false-positive rates due to high baseline population seropositivity for anti-Borrelia antibodies caused by subclinical infection.³

PCR assays that target plasmid-borne genes encoding outer surface proteins A and C (OspA and OspC) and VisE (variable major protein-like sequence, expressed) are more sensitive than those that detect chromosomal 16s ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) genes, as plasmid-rich “blebs” are shed in larger concentrations than chromosomal DNA during active infection.⁷ However, these plasmid-contained genes persist in body tissues and fluids even after the infection is cleared, and their detection may not necessarily correlate with ongoing disease.⁸ Detection of chromosomal 16s rRNA genes is a better predictor of true organism viability.

The sensitivity of PCR for borrelial DNA depends on the type of sample. If a skin biopsy sample is taken of the leading edge of an erythema migrans lesion, the sensitivity is 69% and the specificity is 100%. In patients with Lyme arthritis, PCR of the synovial fluid has a sensitivity of up to 80%. However, the sensitivity of PCR of the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with neurologic manifestations of Lyme disease is only 19%.⁷ PCR of other clinical samples, including blood and urine, is not recommended, as spirochetes are primarily confined to tissues, and very few are present in these body fluids.^3,12

The disadvantage of PCR is that a positive result does not always mean active infection, as the DNA of the dead microbe persists for several months even after successful treatment.⁸

INDIRECT METHODS

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

ELISAs detect anti-Borrelia antibodies. Early-generation ELISAs, still used in many laboratories, use whole-cell extracts of B burgdorferi. Examples are the Vidas Lyme screen (Biomérieux, biomerieux-usa.com) and the Wampole B burgdorferi IgG/M EIA II assay (Alere, www.alere.com). Newer ELISAs use recombinant proteins.¹³

Three major targets for ELISA antibodies are flagellin (Fla), outer surface protein C (OspC), and VisE, especially the invariable region 6 (IR6). Among these, VisE-IR6 is the most conserved region in B burgdorferi.

Early-generation assays have a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 72%.¹¹ However, the patient’s serum may have antibodies that cross-react with unrelated bacterial antigens, leading to false-positive results (Table 3). Whole-cell sonicate assays are not recommended as an independent test and must be confirmed with Western blot testing when assay results are indeterminate or positive.¹¹

Newer-generation ELISAs detect antibodies targeting recombinant proteins of VisE, especially a synthetic peptide C6, within IR6.¹³ VisE-IR6 is the most conserved region of the B burgdorferi complex, and its detection is a highly specific finding, supporting the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Antibodies against VisE-IR6 antigen are the earliest to develop.⁵ An example of a newer-generation serologic test is the VisE C6 Lyme EIA kit, approved as a first-tier test by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2001. This test has a specificity of 99%,^14,15 and its specificity is further increased when used in conjunction with Western blot (99.5%).¹⁵ The advantage of the C6 antibody test is that it is more sensitive than 2-tier testing during early infection (sensitivity 29%–74% vs 17%–40% in early localized infection, and 56%–90% vs 27%–78% in early disseminated infection).⁶

During early infection, older and newer ELISAs are less sensitive because of the limited number of antigens expressed at this stage.¹³ All patients suspected of having early Lyme disease who are seronegative at initial testing should have follow-up testing to look for seroconversion.¹³

Western blot

Western blot (immunoblot) testing identifies IgM and IgG antibodies against specific B burgdorferi antigens. It is considered positive if it detects at least 2 of a possible 3 specific IgM bands in the first 4 weeks of disease or at least 5 of 10 specific IgG bands after 4 weeks of disease (Table 4 and Figure 2).¹⁶

The nature of the bands indicates the duration of infection: Western blot bands against 23-kD OspC and 41-kD FlaB are seen in early localized infection, whereas bands against all 3 B burgdorferi proteins will be seen after several weeks of disease.¹⁷ The IgM result should be interpreted carefully, as only 2 bands are required for the test to be positive, and IgM binds to antigen less specifically than IgG.¹²

 

 

Interpreting the IgM Western blot test: The ‘1-month rule’

If clinical symptoms and signs of Lyme disease have been present for more than 1 month, IgM reactivity alone should not be used to support the diagnosis, in view of the likelihood of a false-positive test result in this situation.¹⁸ This is called the “1-month rule” in the diagnosis of Lyme disease.¹³

In early localized infection, Western blot is only half as sensitive as ELISA testing. Since the overall sensitivity of a 2-step algorithm is equal to that of its least sensitive component, 2-tiered testing is not useful in early disease.¹³

Although currently considered the most specific test for confirmation of Lyme disease, Western blot has limitations. It is technically and interpretively complex and is thus not universally available.¹³ The blots are scored by visual examination, compromising the reproducibility of the test, although densitometric blot analysis techniques and automated scanning and scoring attempt to address some of these limitations.¹³ Like the ELISA, Western blot can have false-positive results in healthy individuals without tick exposure, as nonspecific IgM immunoblots develop faint bands. This is because of cross-reaction between B burgdorferi antigens and antigens from other microorganisms. Around 50% of healthy adults show low-level serum IgG reactivity against the FlaB antigen, leading to false-positive results as well. In cases in which the Western blot result is indeterminate, other etiologies must be considered.

False-positive IgM Western blots are a significant problem. In a 5-year retrospective study done at 63 US Air Force healthcare facilities, 113 (53.3%) of 212 IgM Western blots were falsely positive.¹⁹ A false-positive test was defined as one that failed to meet seropositivity (a first-tier test omitted or negative, > 30 days of symptoms with negative IgG blot), lack of exposure including residing in areas without documented tick habitats, patients having atypical or no symptoms, and negative serology within 30 days of a positive test.

In a similar study done in a highly endemic area, 50 (27.5%) of 182 patients had a false-positive test.²⁰ Physicians need to be careful when interpreting IgM Western blots. It is always important to consider locale, epidemiology, and symptoms when interpreting the test.

Limitations of serologic tests for Lyme disease

Currently available serologic tests have inherent limitations:

• Antibodies against B burgdorferi take at least 1 week to develop
• The background rate of seropositivity in endemic areas can be up to 4%, affecting the utility of a positive test result
• Serologic tests cannot be used as tests of cure because antibodies can persist for months to years even after appropriate antimicrobial therapy and cure of disease; thus, a positive serologic result could represent active infection or remote exposure²¹
• Antibodies can cross-react with related bacteria, including other borrelial or treponemal spirochetes
• False-positive serologic test results can also occur in association with other medical conditions such as polyclonal gammopathies and systemic lupus erythematosus.¹²

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TESTING

Standard 2-tier testing

The CDC released recommendations for diagnosing Lyme disease after a second national conference of serologic diagnosis of Lyme disease in October 1994.¹⁸ The 2-tiered testing method, involving a sensitive ELISA followed by the Western blot to confirm positive and indeterminate ELISA results, was suggested as the gold standard for diagnosis (Figure 3). Of note, negative ELISA results do not require further testing.¹¹

The sensitivity of 2-tiered testing depends on the stage of the disease. Unfortunately, this method has a wide range of sensitivity (17% to 78%) in stage 1 disease. In the same stage, the sensitivity increases from 14.1% in patients with a single erythema migrans lesion and early localized infection to 65.4% in those with multiple lesions. The algorithm has excellent sensitivity in late stage 3 infection (96% to 100%).⁵

A 2-step ELISA algorithm

A 2-step ELISA algorithm (without the Western blot) that includes the whole-cell sonicate assay followed by the VisE C6 peptide assay actually showed higher sensitivity and comparable specificity compared with 2-tiered testing in early localized disease (sensitivity 61%–74% vs 29%–48%, respectively; specificity 99.5% for both methods).²² This higher sensitivity was even more pronounced in early disseminated infection (sensitivity 100% vs 40%, respectively). By late infection, the sensitivities of both testing strategies reached 100%. Compared with the Western blot, the 2-step ELISA algorithm was simpler to execute in a reproducible fashion.⁵

The Infectious Diseases Society of America is revising its current guidelines, with an update expected late this year, which may shift the recommendation from 2-tiered testing to the 2-step ELISA algorithm.

Multiplex testing

To overcome the intrinsic problems of protein-based assays, a multiplexed, array-based assay for the diagnosis of tick-borne infections called Tick-Borne Disease Serochip (TBD-Serochip) was established using recombinant antigens that identify key immunodominant epitopes.⁸ More studies are needed to establish the validity and usefulness of these tests in clinical practice.

Who should not be tested?

The American College of Physicians⁶ recommends against testing in patients:

• Presenting with nonspecific symptoms (eg, headache, myalgia, fatigue, arthralgia) without objective signs of Lyme disease
• With low pretest probability of infection based on epidemiologic exposures and clinical features
• Living in Lyme-endemic areas with no history of tick exposure⁶
• Presenting less than 1 week after tick exposure⁵
• Seeking a test of cure for treated Lyme disease.

DIAGNOSIS IN SPECIAL SITUATIONS

Early Lyme disease

The classic erythema migrans lesion on physical examination of a patient with suspected Lyme disease is diagnostic and does not require laboratory confirmation.¹⁰

In ambiguous cases, 2-tiered testing of a serum sample during the acute presentation and again 4 to 6 weeks later can be useful. In patients who remain seronegative on paired serum samples despite symptoms lasting longer than 6 weeks and no antibiotic treatment in the interim, the diagnosis of Lyme disease is unlikely, and another diagnosis should be sought.³

Antimicrobial therapy may block the serologic response; hence, negative serologic testing in patients started on empiric antibiotics should not rule out Lyme disease.⁶

PCR or bacterial culture testing is not recommended in the evaluation of suspected early Lyme disease.

Central nervous system Lyme disease

Central nervous system Lyme disease is diagnosed by 2-tiered testing using peripheral blood samples because all patients with this infectious manifestation should have mounted an adequate IgG response in the blood.¹¹

B cells migrate to and proliferate inside the central nervous system, leading to intrathecal production of anti-Borrelia antibodies. An index of cerebrospinal fluid to serum antibody greater than 1 is thus also indicative of neuroborreliosis.¹² Thus, performing lumbar puncture to detect intrathecal production of antibodies may support the diagnosis of central nervous system Lyme disease; however, it is not necessary.¹¹

Antibodies persist in the central nervous system for many years after appropriate antimicrobial treatment.

Lyme arthritis

Articular involvement in Lyme disease is characterized by a robust humoral response such that a negative IgG serologic test virtually rules out Lyme arthritis.²³ PCR testing of synovial fluid for borrelial DNA has a sensitivity of 80% but may become falsely negative after 1 to 2 months of antibiotic treatment.^24,25 In an algorithm suggested by Puius et al,²³ PCR testing of synovial fluid should be done in patients who have minimal to no response after 2 months of appropriate oral antimicrobial therapy to determine whether intravenous antibiotics are merited.

Table 5 summarizes the tests of choice in different clinical stages of infection.

Acknowledgment: The authors would like to acknowledge Anita Modi, MD, and Ceena N. Jacob, MD, for reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions, and Belinda Yen-Lieberman, PhD, for contributing pictures of the Western blot test results.

Is the relationship between A-fib and sleep apnea more than a coincidence stemming from the number of shared associated comorbidities? Significantly, the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been shown to decrease the recurrence of A-fib after pharmacologic or electrical conversion and after interventional pulmonary vein interruption.¹ This suggests that at least in some cases, sleep apnea plays an active role in initiating and possibly also maintaining A-fib. The immediate culprit mediators that come to mind are hypoxia and hypercapnea; both are at least partially ameliorated by the successful use of CPAP, and both are reasonable physiologic candidates for induction of A-fib. Hypoxia is supported by clinical observation, and hypercapnea by experimental modeling.²

It is easy for clinicians to conceptualize the organ effects of hypoxia and hypercapnea. We are accustomed to seeing clinical ramifications of these in the emergency department and intensive care unit, particularly those affecting the brain and heart, organs critically dependent on transmembrane ion flow. We may recall from biochemistry classes the effects of hypoxia on intracellular metabolism and the implications on energy stores, mitochondrial function, and ion translocation. Recent work on the cellular effects of hypoxia, including research that resulted in a Nobel prize, has drawn major attention to patterned cellular responses to intermittent and persistent hypoxia. This includes recognition of epigenetic changes resulting in localized cardiac remodeling and fibrosis,³ factors that clearly affect the expression of arrhythmias, including A-fib.

But the interrelationship between A-fib and sleep apnea may be even more convoluted and intriguing. It now seems that most things cardiac are associated with inflammation in some guise, and the A-fib connection with sleep apnea may not be an exception. Almost 20 years ago, it was recognized that A-fib is associated with an elevation in circulating C-reactive protein (CRP),⁴ a biomarker of “inflammation,” although not necessarily an active participant. Recent reviews of this connection have been published,⁵ and successful anti-inflammatory approaches to preventing A-fib using colchicine have been described.⁶ So how does this tie in with sleep apnea?

A number of papers have now demonstrated that sleep apnea is also associated with an elevation in CRP,⁷ perhaps due to increases in tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha in response to the intermittent hypoxia of sleep apnea. TNF can drive the inflammatory response through increased expression of genes regulated by nuclear factor kappa-B.⁸ While it certainly warrants consideration that the elevated biomarkers of inflammation in patients with sleep apnea actually reflect the presence of the frequent comorbidities, including visceral obesity, treating sleep apnea with CPAP (comparable to what I noted above in patients with A-fib) has been shown to reduce circulating CRP levels.⁹

As our understanding of the biologic underpinnings of A-fib and sleep apnea continue to grow, the practical clinical implications of the relationship between them, as described by Ayache et al, may achieve greater clarity. The two conditions commonly coexist, and treating the sleep apnea results in better rhythm-directed outcomes in the A-fib.

Stay tuned, there is certainly more to learn about this.

Is the relationship between A-fib and sleep apnea more than a coincidence stemming from the number of shared associated comorbidities? Significantly, the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been shown to decrease the recurrence of A-fib after pharmacologic or electrical conversion and after interventional pulmonary vein interruption.¹ This suggests that at least in some cases, sleep apnea plays an active role in initiating and possibly also maintaining A-fib. The immediate culprit mediators that come to mind are hypoxia and hypercapnea; both are at least partially ameliorated by the successful use of CPAP, and both are reasonable physiologic candidates for induction of A-fib. Hypoxia is supported by clinical observation, and hypercapnea by experimental modeling.²

It is easy for clinicians to conceptualize the organ effects of hypoxia and hypercapnea. We are accustomed to seeing clinical ramifications of these in the emergency department and intensive care unit, particularly those affecting the brain and heart, organs critically dependent on transmembrane ion flow. We may recall from biochemistry classes the effects of hypoxia on intracellular metabolism and the implications on energy stores, mitochondrial function, and ion translocation. Recent work on the cellular effects of hypoxia, including research that resulted in a Nobel prize, has drawn major attention to patterned cellular responses to intermittent and persistent hypoxia. This includes recognition of epigenetic changes resulting in localized cardiac remodeling and fibrosis,³ factors that clearly affect the expression of arrhythmias, including A-fib.

But the interrelationship between A-fib and sleep apnea may be even more convoluted and intriguing. It now seems that most things cardiac are associated with inflammation in some guise, and the A-fib connection with sleep apnea may not be an exception. Almost 20 years ago, it was recognized that A-fib is associated with an elevation in circulating C-reactive protein (CRP),⁴ a biomarker of “inflammation,” although not necessarily an active participant. Recent reviews of this connection have been published,⁵ and successful anti-inflammatory approaches to preventing A-fib using colchicine have been described.⁶ So how does this tie in with sleep apnea?

A number of papers have now demonstrated that sleep apnea is also associated with an elevation in CRP,⁷ perhaps due to increases in tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha in response to the intermittent hypoxia of sleep apnea. TNF can drive the inflammatory response through increased expression of genes regulated by nuclear factor kappa-B.⁸ While it certainly warrants consideration that the elevated biomarkers of inflammation in patients with sleep apnea actually reflect the presence of the frequent comorbidities, including visceral obesity, treating sleep apnea with CPAP (comparable to what I noted above in patients with A-fib) has been shown to reduce circulating CRP levels.⁹

As our understanding of the biologic underpinnings of A-fib and sleep apnea continue to grow, the practical clinical implications of the relationship between them, as described by Ayache et al, may achieve greater clarity. The two conditions commonly coexist, and treating the sleep apnea results in better rhythm-directed outcomes in the A-fib.

Stay tuned, there is certainly more to learn about this.

Is the relationship between A-fib and sleep apnea more than a coincidence stemming from the number of shared associated comorbidities? Significantly, the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been shown to decrease the recurrence of A-fib after pharmacologic or electrical conversion and after interventional pulmonary vein interruption.¹ This suggests that at least in some cases, sleep apnea plays an active role in initiating and possibly also maintaining A-fib. The immediate culprit mediators that come to mind are hypoxia and hypercapnea; both are at least partially ameliorated by the successful use of CPAP, and both are reasonable physiologic candidates for induction of A-fib. Hypoxia is supported by clinical observation, and hypercapnea by experimental modeling.²

It is easy for clinicians to conceptualize the organ effects of hypoxia and hypercapnea. We are accustomed to seeing clinical ramifications of these in the emergency department and intensive care unit, particularly those affecting the brain and heart, organs critically dependent on transmembrane ion flow. We may recall from biochemistry classes the effects of hypoxia on intracellular metabolism and the implications on energy stores, mitochondrial function, and ion translocation. Recent work on the cellular effects of hypoxia, including research that resulted in a Nobel prize, has drawn major attention to patterned cellular responses to intermittent and persistent hypoxia. This includes recognition of epigenetic changes resulting in localized cardiac remodeling and fibrosis,³ factors that clearly affect the expression of arrhythmias, including A-fib.

But the interrelationship between A-fib and sleep apnea may be even more convoluted and intriguing. It now seems that most things cardiac are associated with inflammation in some guise, and the A-fib connection with sleep apnea may not be an exception. Almost 20 years ago, it was recognized that A-fib is associated with an elevation in circulating C-reactive protein (CRP),⁴ a biomarker of “inflammation,” although not necessarily an active participant. Recent reviews of this connection have been published,⁵ and successful anti-inflammatory approaches to preventing A-fib using colchicine have been described.⁶ So how does this tie in with sleep apnea?

A number of papers have now demonstrated that sleep apnea is also associated with an elevation in CRP,⁷ perhaps due to increases in tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha in response to the intermittent hypoxia of sleep apnea. TNF can drive the inflammatory response through increased expression of genes regulated by nuclear factor kappa-B.⁸ While it certainly warrants consideration that the elevated biomarkers of inflammation in patients with sleep apnea actually reflect the presence of the frequent comorbidities, including visceral obesity, treating sleep apnea with CPAP (comparable to what I noted above in patients with A-fib) has been shown to reduce circulating CRP levels.⁹

As our understanding of the biologic underpinnings of A-fib and sleep apnea continue to grow, the practical clinical implications of the relationship between them, as described by Ayache et al, may achieve greater clarity. The two conditions commonly coexist, and treating the sleep apnea results in better rhythm-directed outcomes in the A-fib.

Stay tuned, there is certainly more to learn about this.

Yes. The prevalence of sleep apnea is exceedingly high in patients with atrial fibrillation—50% to 80% compared with 30% to 60% in respective control groups.^1–3 Conversely, atrial fibrillation is more prevalent in those with sleep-disordered breathing than in those without (4.8% vs 0.9%).⁴

Sleep-disordered breathing comprises obstructive sleep apnea and central sleep apnea. Obstructive sleep apnea, characterized by repetitive upper-airway obstruction during sleep, is accompanied by intermittent hypoxia, rises in carbon dioxide, autonomic nervous system fluctuations, and intrathoracic pressure alterations.⁵ Central sleep apnea may be neurally mediated and, in the setting of cardiac disease, is characterized by alterations in chemosensitivity and chemoresponsiveness, leading to a state of high loop gain—ie, a hypersensitive ventilatory control system leading to ventilatory drive oscillations.⁶

Both obstructive and central sleep apnea have been associated with atrial fibrillation. Experimental data implicate obstructive sleep apnea as a trigger of atrial arrhythmogenesis,^7,8 and epidemiologic studies support an association between central sleep apnea, Cheyne-Stokes respiration, and incident atrial fibrillation.⁹

HOW SLEEP APNEA COULD LEAD TO ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

In experiments in animals, intermittent upper-airway obstruction led to forced inspiration, substantial negative intrathoracic pressure, subsequent left atrial distention, and increased susceptibility to atrial fibrillation.¹⁰ The autonomic nervous system may be a mediator of apnea-induced atrial fibrillation, as apnea-induced atrial fibrillation is suppressed with autonomic blockade.¹⁰

Emerging data also support the hypothesis that intermittent hypoxia⁷ and resolution of hypercapnia,⁸ as observed in obstructive sleep apnea, exert atrial electrophysiologic changes that increase vulnerability to atrial arrhythmogenesis.

In a case-crossover study,¹¹ the odds of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation occurring after a respiratory disturbance were 17.9 times higher than after normal breathing (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2–144.2), though the absolute rate of overall arrhythmia events (including both atrial fibrillation and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia) associated with respiratory disturbances was low (1 excess arrhythmia event per 40,000 respiratory disturbances).

EFFECT OF SLEEP APNEA ON ATRIAL FIBRILLATION MANAGEMENT

Sleep apnea also seems to affect the efficacy of a rhythm-control strategy for atrial fibrillation. For example, patients with obstructive sleep apnea have a higher risk of recurrent atrial fibrillation after cardioversion (82% vs 42% in controls)¹² and up to a 25% greater risk of recurrence after catheter ablation compared with those without obstructive sleep apnea (risk ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.08–1.45).¹³

Several observational studies showed a higher rate of atrial fibrillation after pulmonary vein isolation in obstructive sleep apnea patients who do not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) than in those who do.^14–17 CPAP therapy appears to exert beneficial effects on cardiac structural remodeling;  cardiac magnetic resonance imaging shows that patients with sleep apnea who received less than 4 hours of CPAP per night had larger left atrial dimensions and increased left ventricular mass compared with those who received more than 4 hours of CPAP at night.¹⁷ However, a need remains for high-quality, large randomized controlled trials to eliminate potential unmeasured biases due to differences that may exist between CPAP users and non-users, such as general adherence to medical therapy and healthcare interventions.

An additional consideration is that the overall utility and value of obtaining a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea strictly as it pertains to atrial fibrillation management is affected by whether a rhythm- or rate-control strategy is pursued. In other words, if a patient is deemed to be in permanent atrial fibrillation and a rhythm-control strategy is therefore not pursued, the potential effect of untreated obstructive sleep apnea on atrial fibrillation recurrence could be less important. In this case, however, the other beneficial cardiovascular and systemic effects of diagnosing and treating underlying obstructive sleep apnea would remain.

 

 

POPULATION STUDIES

Epidemiologic and clinic-based studies have supported an association between sleep apnea (mostly central, but also obstructive) and atrial fibrillation.^4,18

Community-based studies such as the Sleep Heart Health Study⁴ and the Outcomes of Sleep Disorders in Older Men Study (MrOS Sleep),¹⁸ involving thousands of participants, have found the strongest cross-sectional associations of both obstructive and central sleep apnea with nocturnal atrial fibrillation. The findings included a 2 to 5 times higher odds of nocturnal atrial fibrillation, particularly in those with a moderate to severe degree of sleep-disordered breathing—even after adjusting for confounding influences (eg, obesity) and self-reported cardiac disease such as heart failure.

In MrOS Sleep, in an older male cohort, both obstructive and central sleep apnea were associated with nocturnal atrial fibrillation, though central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respirations had a stronger magnitude of association.¹⁸

Further insights can be drawn specifically from patients with heart failure. Sin et al,¹⁹ in a 1999 study, found that in 450 patients with systolic heart failure (85% men), the prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing was 25% to 33% (depending on the apnea-hypopnea index cutoff used) for central sleep apnea, and similarly 27% to 38% for obstructive sleep apnea. The prevalence of atrial fibrillation in this group was 10% in women and 15% in men. Atrial fibrillation was reported as a significant risk factor for central sleep apnea, but not for obstructive sleep apnea (for which only male sex and increasing body mass index were significant risk factors). Directionality was not clearly reported in this retrospective study in terms of timing of sleep studies and other assessments: ie, the report did not clearly state which came first, the atrial fibrillation or the sleep apnea. Therefore, the possibility that central sleep apnea is a predictor of atrial fibrillation cannot be excluded.  

Yumino et al,²⁰ in a study published in 2009, evaluated 218 patients with heart failure (with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤ 45%) and reported a prevalence of moderate to severe sleep apnea of 21% for central sleep apnea and 26% for obstructive sleep apnea. In multivariate analysis, atrial fibrillation was independently associated with central sleep apnea but not obstructive sleep apnea.

In recent cohort studies, central sleep apnea was associated with 2 to 3 times higher odds of developing atrial fibrillation, while obstructive sleep apnea was not a predictor of incident atrial fibrillation.^9,21

Although most available studies associate sleep apnea with atrial fibrillation, findings of a case-control study²² did not support a difference in the prevalence of sleep apnea syndrome (defined as apnea index ≥ 5 and apnea-hypopnea index ≥ 15, and the presence of sleep symptoms) in patients with lone atrial fibrillation (no evident cardiovascular disease) compared with controls matched for age, sex, and cardiovascular morbidity.

But observational studies are limited by the potential for residual unmeasured confounding factors and lack of objective cardiac structural data, such as left ventricular ejection fraction and atrial enlargement. Moreover, there can be significant differences in sleep apnea definitions among studies, thus limiting the ability to reach a definitive conclusion about the relationship between sleep apnea and atrial fibrillation.

SCREENING AND DIAGNOSIS

The 2014 joint guidelines of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society for the management of atrial fibrillation state that a sleep study may be useful if sleep apnea is suspected.²³ The 2019 focused update of the 2014 guidelines²⁴ state that for overweight and obese patients with atrial fibrillation, weight loss combined with risk-factor modification is recommended (class I recommendation, level of evidence B-R, ie, data derived from 1 or more randomized trials or meta-analysis of such studies). Risk-factor modification in this case includes assessment and treatment of underlying sleep apnea, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, glucose intolerance, and alcohol and tobacco use.

Laboratory polysomnography has long been considered the gold standard for sleep apnea diagnosis. In one study,¹³ obstructive sleep apnea was a greater predictor of atrial fibrillation when diagnosed by polysomnography (risk ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.16–1.68) compared with identification by screening using the Berlin questionnaire (risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.91–1.27). However, a laboratory sleep study is associated with increased patient burden and limited availability.

Home sleep apnea testing is being increasingly used in the diagnostic evaluation of obstructive sleep apnea and may be a less costly, more available alternative. However, since a home sleep apnea test is less sensitive than polysomnography in detecting obstructive sleep apnea, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine guidelines²⁸ state that if a single home sleep apnea test is negative or inconclusive, polysomnography should be done if there is clinical suspicion of sleep apnea. Moreover, current guidelines from this group recommend that patients with significant cardiorespiratory disease should be tested with polysomnography rather than home sleep apnea testing.²²

Further study is needed to determine the optimal screening method for sleep apnea in patients with atrial fibrillation and to clarify the role of home sleep apnea testing. While keeping in mind the limitations of a screening questionnaire in this population, as a general approach it is reasonable to use a screening questionnaire for sleep apnea. And if the screen is positive, further evaluation with a sleep study is merited, whether by laboratory polysomnography, a home sleep apnea test, or referral to a sleep specialist.

MULTIDISCIPLINARY CARE MAY BE IDEAL

Overall, given the high prevalence of sleep apnea in patients with atrial fibrillation, the deleterious effects of sleep apnea in general, the influence of sleep apnea on atrial fibrillation, and the cardiovascular and other beneficial effects of adequate treatment of sleep apnea, patients with atrial fibrillation should be assessed for sleep apnea.

While the optimal strategy in evaluating for sleep apnea in these patients needs to be further defined, a multidisciplinary approach to care involving a primary care provider, cardiologist, and sleep specialist may be ideal.

Yes. The prevalence of sleep apnea is exceedingly high in patients with atrial fibrillation—50% to 80% compared with 30% to 60% in respective control groups.^1–3 Conversely, atrial fibrillation is more prevalent in those with sleep-disordered breathing than in those without (4.8% vs 0.9%).⁴

Sleep-disordered breathing comprises obstructive sleep apnea and central sleep apnea. Obstructive sleep apnea, characterized by repetitive upper-airway obstruction during sleep, is accompanied by intermittent hypoxia, rises in carbon dioxide, autonomic nervous system fluctuations, and intrathoracic pressure alterations.⁵ Central sleep apnea may be neurally mediated and, in the setting of cardiac disease, is characterized by alterations in chemosensitivity and chemoresponsiveness, leading to a state of high loop gain—ie, a hypersensitive ventilatory control system leading to ventilatory drive oscillations.⁶

Both obstructive and central sleep apnea have been associated with atrial fibrillation. Experimental data implicate obstructive sleep apnea as a trigger of atrial arrhythmogenesis,^7,8 and epidemiologic studies support an association between central sleep apnea, Cheyne-Stokes respiration, and incident atrial fibrillation.⁹

HOW SLEEP APNEA COULD LEAD TO ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

In experiments in animals, intermittent upper-airway obstruction led to forced inspiration, substantial negative intrathoracic pressure, subsequent left atrial distention, and increased susceptibility to atrial fibrillation.¹⁰ The autonomic nervous system may be a mediator of apnea-induced atrial fibrillation, as apnea-induced atrial fibrillation is suppressed with autonomic blockade.¹⁰

Emerging data also support the hypothesis that intermittent hypoxia⁷ and resolution of hypercapnia,⁸ as observed in obstructive sleep apnea, exert atrial electrophysiologic changes that increase vulnerability to atrial arrhythmogenesis.

In a case-crossover study,¹¹ the odds of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation occurring after a respiratory disturbance were 17.9 times higher than after normal breathing (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2–144.2), though the absolute rate of overall arrhythmia events (including both atrial fibrillation and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia) associated with respiratory disturbances was low (1 excess arrhythmia event per 40,000 respiratory disturbances).

EFFECT OF SLEEP APNEA ON ATRIAL FIBRILLATION MANAGEMENT

Sleep apnea also seems to affect the efficacy of a rhythm-control strategy for atrial fibrillation. For example, patients with obstructive sleep apnea have a higher risk of recurrent atrial fibrillation after cardioversion (82% vs 42% in controls)¹² and up to a 25% greater risk of recurrence after catheter ablation compared with those without obstructive sleep apnea (risk ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.08–1.45).¹³

Several observational studies showed a higher rate of atrial fibrillation after pulmonary vein isolation in obstructive sleep apnea patients who do not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) than in those who do.^14–17 CPAP therapy appears to exert beneficial effects on cardiac structural remodeling;  cardiac magnetic resonance imaging shows that patients with sleep apnea who received less than 4 hours of CPAP per night had larger left atrial dimensions and increased left ventricular mass compared with those who received more than 4 hours of CPAP at night.¹⁷ However, a need remains for high-quality, large randomized controlled trials to eliminate potential unmeasured biases due to differences that may exist between CPAP users and non-users, such as general adherence to medical therapy and healthcare interventions.

An additional consideration is that the overall utility and value of obtaining a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea strictly as it pertains to atrial fibrillation management is affected by whether a rhythm- or rate-control strategy is pursued. In other words, if a patient is deemed to be in permanent atrial fibrillation and a rhythm-control strategy is therefore not pursued, the potential effect of untreated obstructive sleep apnea on atrial fibrillation recurrence could be less important. In this case, however, the other beneficial cardiovascular and systemic effects of diagnosing and treating underlying obstructive sleep apnea would remain.

 

 

POPULATION STUDIES

Epidemiologic and clinic-based studies have supported an association between sleep apnea (mostly central, but also obstructive) and atrial fibrillation.^4,18

Community-based studies such as the Sleep Heart Health Study⁴ and the Outcomes of Sleep Disorders in Older Men Study (MrOS Sleep),¹⁸ involving thousands of participants, have found the strongest cross-sectional associations of both obstructive and central sleep apnea with nocturnal atrial fibrillation. The findings included a 2 to 5 times higher odds of nocturnal atrial fibrillation, particularly in those with a moderate to severe degree of sleep-disordered breathing—even after adjusting for confounding influences (eg, obesity) and self-reported cardiac disease such as heart failure.

In MrOS Sleep, in an older male cohort, both obstructive and central sleep apnea were associated with nocturnal atrial fibrillation, though central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respirations had a stronger magnitude of association.¹⁸

Further insights can be drawn specifically from patients with heart failure. Sin et al,¹⁹ in a 1999 study, found that in 450 patients with systolic heart failure (85% men), the prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing was 25% to 33% (depending on the apnea-hypopnea index cutoff used) for central sleep apnea, and similarly 27% to 38% for obstructive sleep apnea. The prevalence of atrial fibrillation in this group was 10% in women and 15% in men. Atrial fibrillation was reported as a significant risk factor for central sleep apnea, but not for obstructive sleep apnea (for which only male sex and increasing body mass index were significant risk factors). Directionality was not clearly reported in this retrospective study in terms of timing of sleep studies and other assessments: ie, the report did not clearly state which came first, the atrial fibrillation or the sleep apnea. Therefore, the possibility that central sleep apnea is a predictor of atrial fibrillation cannot be excluded.  

Yumino et al,²⁰ in a study published in 2009, evaluated 218 patients with heart failure (with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤ 45%) and reported a prevalence of moderate to severe sleep apnea of 21% for central sleep apnea and 26% for obstructive sleep apnea. In multivariate analysis, atrial fibrillation was independently associated with central sleep apnea but not obstructive sleep apnea.

In recent cohort studies, central sleep apnea was associated with 2 to 3 times higher odds of developing atrial fibrillation, while obstructive sleep apnea was not a predictor of incident atrial fibrillation.^9,21

Although most available studies associate sleep apnea with atrial fibrillation, findings of a case-control study²² did not support a difference in the prevalence of sleep apnea syndrome (defined as apnea index ≥ 5 and apnea-hypopnea index ≥ 15, and the presence of sleep symptoms) in patients with lone atrial fibrillation (no evident cardiovascular disease) compared with controls matched for age, sex, and cardiovascular morbidity.

But observational studies are limited by the potential for residual unmeasured confounding factors and lack of objective cardiac structural data, such as left ventricular ejection fraction and atrial enlargement. Moreover, there can be significant differences in sleep apnea definitions among studies, thus limiting the ability to reach a definitive conclusion about the relationship between sleep apnea and atrial fibrillation.

SCREENING AND DIAGNOSIS

The 2014 joint guidelines of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society for the management of atrial fibrillation state that a sleep study may be useful if sleep apnea is suspected.²³ The 2019 focused update of the 2014 guidelines²⁴ state that for overweight and obese patients with atrial fibrillation, weight loss combined with risk-factor modification is recommended (class I recommendation, level of evidence B-R, ie, data derived from 1 or more randomized trials or meta-analysis of such studies). Risk-factor modification in this case includes assessment and treatment of underlying sleep apnea, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, glucose intolerance, and alcohol and tobacco use.

Laboratory polysomnography has long been considered the gold standard for sleep apnea diagnosis. In one study,¹³ obstructive sleep apnea was a greater predictor of atrial fibrillation when diagnosed by polysomnography (risk ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.16–1.68) compared with identification by screening using the Berlin questionnaire (risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.91–1.27). However, a laboratory sleep study is associated with increased patient burden and limited availability.

Home sleep apnea testing is being increasingly used in the diagnostic evaluation of obstructive sleep apnea and may be a less costly, more available alternative. However, since a home sleep apnea test is less sensitive than polysomnography in detecting obstructive sleep apnea, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine guidelines²⁸ state that if a single home sleep apnea test is negative or inconclusive, polysomnography should be done if there is clinical suspicion of sleep apnea. Moreover, current guidelines from this group recommend that patients with significant cardiorespiratory disease should be tested with polysomnography rather than home sleep apnea testing.²²

Further study is needed to determine the optimal screening method for sleep apnea in patients with atrial fibrillation and to clarify the role of home sleep apnea testing. While keeping in mind the limitations of a screening questionnaire in this population, as a general approach it is reasonable to use a screening questionnaire for sleep apnea. And if the screen is positive, further evaluation with a sleep study is merited, whether by laboratory polysomnography, a home sleep apnea test, or referral to a sleep specialist.

MULTIDISCIPLINARY CARE MAY BE IDEAL

Overall, given the high prevalence of sleep apnea in patients with atrial fibrillation, the deleterious effects of sleep apnea in general, the influence of sleep apnea on atrial fibrillation, and the cardiovascular and other beneficial effects of adequate treatment of sleep apnea, patients with atrial fibrillation should be assessed for sleep apnea.

While the optimal strategy in evaluating for sleep apnea in these patients needs to be further defined, a multidisciplinary approach to care involving a primary care provider, cardiologist, and sleep specialist may be ideal.

Yes. The prevalence of sleep apnea is exceedingly high in patients with atrial fibrillation—50% to 80% compared with 30% to 60% in respective control groups.^1–3 Conversely, atrial fibrillation is more prevalent in those with sleep-disordered breathing than in those without (4.8% vs 0.9%).⁴

Sleep-disordered breathing comprises obstructive sleep apnea and central sleep apnea. Obstructive sleep apnea, characterized by repetitive upper-airway obstruction during sleep, is accompanied by intermittent hypoxia, rises in carbon dioxide, autonomic nervous system fluctuations, and intrathoracic pressure alterations.⁵ Central sleep apnea may be neurally mediated and, in the setting of cardiac disease, is characterized by alterations in chemosensitivity and chemoresponsiveness, leading to a state of high loop gain—ie, a hypersensitive ventilatory control system leading to ventilatory drive oscillations.⁶

Both obstructive and central sleep apnea have been associated with atrial fibrillation. Experimental data implicate obstructive sleep apnea as a trigger of atrial arrhythmogenesis,^7,8 and epidemiologic studies support an association between central sleep apnea, Cheyne-Stokes respiration, and incident atrial fibrillation.⁹

HOW SLEEP APNEA COULD LEAD TO ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

In experiments in animals, intermittent upper-airway obstruction led to forced inspiration, substantial negative intrathoracic pressure, subsequent left atrial distention, and increased susceptibility to atrial fibrillation.¹⁰ The autonomic nervous system may be a mediator of apnea-induced atrial fibrillation, as apnea-induced atrial fibrillation is suppressed with autonomic blockade.¹⁰

Emerging data also support the hypothesis that intermittent hypoxia⁷ and resolution of hypercapnia,⁸ as observed in obstructive sleep apnea, exert atrial electrophysiologic changes that increase vulnerability to atrial arrhythmogenesis.

In a case-crossover study,¹¹ the odds of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation occurring after a respiratory disturbance were 17.9 times higher than after normal breathing (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2–144.2), though the absolute rate of overall arrhythmia events (including both atrial fibrillation and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia) associated with respiratory disturbances was low (1 excess arrhythmia event per 40,000 respiratory disturbances).

EFFECT OF SLEEP APNEA ON ATRIAL FIBRILLATION MANAGEMENT

Sleep apnea also seems to affect the efficacy of a rhythm-control strategy for atrial fibrillation. For example, patients with obstructive sleep apnea have a higher risk of recurrent atrial fibrillation after cardioversion (82% vs 42% in controls)¹² and up to a 25% greater risk of recurrence after catheter ablation compared with those without obstructive sleep apnea (risk ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.08–1.45).¹³

Several observational studies showed a higher rate of atrial fibrillation after pulmonary vein isolation in obstructive sleep apnea patients who do not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) than in those who do.^14–17 CPAP therapy appears to exert beneficial effects on cardiac structural remodeling;  cardiac magnetic resonance imaging shows that patients with sleep apnea who received less than 4 hours of CPAP per night had larger left atrial dimensions and increased left ventricular mass compared with those who received more than 4 hours of CPAP at night.¹⁷ However, a need remains for high-quality, large randomized controlled trials to eliminate potential unmeasured biases due to differences that may exist between CPAP users and non-users, such as general adherence to medical therapy and healthcare interventions.

An additional consideration is that the overall utility and value of obtaining a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea strictly as it pertains to atrial fibrillation management is affected by whether a rhythm- or rate-control strategy is pursued. In other words, if a patient is deemed to be in permanent atrial fibrillation and a rhythm-control strategy is therefore not pursued, the potential effect of untreated obstructive sleep apnea on atrial fibrillation recurrence could be less important. In this case, however, the other beneficial cardiovascular and systemic effects of diagnosing and treating underlying obstructive sleep apnea would remain.

 

 

POPULATION STUDIES

Epidemiologic and clinic-based studies have supported an association between sleep apnea (mostly central, but also obstructive) and atrial fibrillation.^4,18

Community-based studies such as the Sleep Heart Health Study⁴ and the Outcomes of Sleep Disorders in Older Men Study (MrOS Sleep),¹⁸ involving thousands of participants, have found the strongest cross-sectional associations of both obstructive and central sleep apnea with nocturnal atrial fibrillation. The findings included a 2 to 5 times higher odds of nocturnal atrial fibrillation, particularly in those with a moderate to severe degree of sleep-disordered breathing—even after adjusting for confounding influences (eg, obesity) and self-reported cardiac disease such as heart failure.

In MrOS Sleep, in an older male cohort, both obstructive and central sleep apnea were associated with nocturnal atrial fibrillation, though central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respirations had a stronger magnitude of association.¹⁸

Further insights can be drawn specifically from patients with heart failure. Sin et al,¹⁹ in a 1999 study, found that in 450 patients with systolic heart failure (85% men), the prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing was 25% to 33% (depending on the apnea-hypopnea index cutoff used) for central sleep apnea, and similarly 27% to 38% for obstructive sleep apnea. The prevalence of atrial fibrillation in this group was 10% in women and 15% in men. Atrial fibrillation was reported as a significant risk factor for central sleep apnea, but not for obstructive sleep apnea (for which only male sex and increasing body mass index were significant risk factors). Directionality was not clearly reported in this retrospective study in terms of timing of sleep studies and other assessments: ie, the report did not clearly state which came first, the atrial fibrillation or the sleep apnea. Therefore, the possibility that central sleep apnea is a predictor of atrial fibrillation cannot be excluded.  

Yumino et al,²⁰ in a study published in 2009, evaluated 218 patients with heart failure (with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤ 45%) and reported a prevalence of moderate to severe sleep apnea of 21% for central sleep apnea and 26% for obstructive sleep apnea. In multivariate analysis, atrial fibrillation was independently associated with central sleep apnea but not obstructive sleep apnea.

In recent cohort studies, central sleep apnea was associated with 2 to 3 times higher odds of developing atrial fibrillation, while obstructive sleep apnea was not a predictor of incident atrial fibrillation.^9,21

Although most available studies associate sleep apnea with atrial fibrillation, findings of a case-control study²² did not support a difference in the prevalence of sleep apnea syndrome (defined as apnea index ≥ 5 and apnea-hypopnea index ≥ 15, and the presence of sleep symptoms) in patients with lone atrial fibrillation (no evident cardiovascular disease) compared with controls matched for age, sex, and cardiovascular morbidity.

But observational studies are limited by the potential for residual unmeasured confounding factors and lack of objective cardiac structural data, such as left ventricular ejection fraction and atrial enlargement. Moreover, there can be significant differences in sleep apnea definitions among studies, thus limiting the ability to reach a definitive conclusion about the relationship between sleep apnea and atrial fibrillation.

SCREENING AND DIAGNOSIS

The 2014 joint guidelines of the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society for the management of atrial fibrillation state that a sleep study may be useful if sleep apnea is suspected.²³ The 2019 focused update of the 2014 guidelines²⁴ state that for overweight and obese patients with atrial fibrillation, weight loss combined with risk-factor modification is recommended (class I recommendation, level of evidence B-R, ie, data derived from 1 or more randomized trials or meta-analysis of such studies). Risk-factor modification in this case includes assessment and treatment of underlying sleep apnea, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, glucose intolerance, and alcohol and tobacco use.

Laboratory polysomnography has long been considered the gold standard for sleep apnea diagnosis. In one study,¹³ obstructive sleep apnea was a greater predictor of atrial fibrillation when diagnosed by polysomnography (risk ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.16–1.68) compared with identification by screening using the Berlin questionnaire (risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.91–1.27). However, a laboratory sleep study is associated with increased patient burden and limited availability.

Home sleep apnea testing is being increasingly used in the diagnostic evaluation of obstructive sleep apnea and may be a less costly, more available alternative. However, since a home sleep apnea test is less sensitive than polysomnography in detecting obstructive sleep apnea, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine guidelines²⁸ state that if a single home sleep apnea test is negative or inconclusive, polysomnography should be done if there is clinical suspicion of sleep apnea. Moreover, current guidelines from this group recommend that patients with significant cardiorespiratory disease should be tested with polysomnography rather than home sleep apnea testing.²²

Further study is needed to determine the optimal screening method for sleep apnea in patients with atrial fibrillation and to clarify the role of home sleep apnea testing. While keeping in mind the limitations of a screening questionnaire in this population, as a general approach it is reasonable to use a screening questionnaire for sleep apnea. And if the screen is positive, further evaluation with a sleep study is merited, whether by laboratory polysomnography, a home sleep apnea test, or referral to a sleep specialist.

MULTIDISCIPLINARY CARE MAY BE IDEAL

Overall, given the high prevalence of sleep apnea in patients with atrial fibrillation, the deleterious effects of sleep apnea in general, the influence of sleep apnea on atrial fibrillation, and the cardiovascular and other beneficial effects of adequate treatment of sleep apnea, patients with atrial fibrillation should be assessed for sleep apnea.

While the optimal strategy in evaluating for sleep apnea in these patients needs to be further defined, a multidisciplinary approach to care involving a primary care provider, cardiologist, and sleep specialist may be ideal.

Traumatic microbleeds (TMBs) may indicate vascular injury and predict worse outcomes after even minor brain injury, according to a study at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

The study involved 439 adults with head injuries treated in the emergency department. The participants had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans within 48 hours of the injury and again during 4 subsequent visits. They also completed behavioral and outcome questionnaires.

Microbleeds appear as small dark lesions on MRI scans but are usually too small to be seen on computer tomography (CT) scans. Sometimes they appear as dots (punctate), sometimes they are linear. In previous studies, researchers examined TMBs in the acute phase of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke and found linear-appearing TMBs only in patients with TBI, suggesting that at least linear TMBs are consistent with trauma and might be the result of injured vessels. They conjectured that TMBs seen on MRI might be a form of traumatic vascular injury distinct from primary injury to the axons.

In this study, one-third of the patients had TMBs. More than half (58%) of the participants with severe head injury showed microbleeds, as did 27% of patients with mild injuries. In most patients with microbleeds, they appeared as linear streaks or dotted lesions. The study also revealed that the frontal lobes were the region most likely to show microbleeds.

The researchers controlled for variables known to predict poor outcome, such as trauma level and trauma-related injury on CT. Even so, microbleeds significantly predicted worse outcome. Patients with both punctate and linear TMBs were twice as likely to have disability (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended ≤6) on follow-up.

One participant’s family donated his brain for further analysis after he died. Imaging with a more powerful MRI scanner and a detailed histologic analysis allowed the researchers to better understand the pathology.

The researchers found that what appeared as a punctate TMB on MRI corresponded to iron-laden macrophages in the perivascular space surrounding a vascular tree that extended over centimeters. That was surprising, the researchers say. They expected to see iron within the parenchyma, but they also found iron inside macrophages outside of the parenchyma between the vessel and neuropil, tracking alongside vessels.

The researchers say that finding signified that the extent of injury was more extensive than indicated on MRI and had consequences to cellular function over a larger area of brain. In fact, they suggest, punctate and linear TMBs may not be distinct entities: The difference in shape may be “an issue of resolution.”

The researchers conclude that TMBs could be biomarkers for vascular injury. They also note that the leakage of blood from damaged blood vessels can trigger an inflammatory response. The damage to vessels, the disruption of normal pathways of blood flow, and the influx of inflammatory cells could result in secondary injury to the brain tissue due to ischemia.

Thus, TMBs may also be useful biomarkers for identifying which patients are candidates for treatments that reduce ischemic damage or improve microvascular cerebral blood flow.

Traumatic microbleeds (TMBs) may indicate vascular injury and predict worse outcomes after even minor brain injury, according to a study at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

The study involved 439 adults with head injuries treated in the emergency department. The participants had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans within 48 hours of the injury and again during 4 subsequent visits. They also completed behavioral and outcome questionnaires.

Microbleeds appear as small dark lesions on MRI scans but are usually too small to be seen on computer tomography (CT) scans. Sometimes they appear as dots (punctate), sometimes they are linear. In previous studies, researchers examined TMBs in the acute phase of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke and found linear-appearing TMBs only in patients with TBI, suggesting that at least linear TMBs are consistent with trauma and might be the result of injured vessels. They conjectured that TMBs seen on MRI might be a form of traumatic vascular injury distinct from primary injury to the axons.

In this study, one-third of the patients had TMBs. More than half (58%) of the participants with severe head injury showed microbleeds, as did 27% of patients with mild injuries. In most patients with microbleeds, they appeared as linear streaks or dotted lesions. The study also revealed that the frontal lobes were the region most likely to show microbleeds.

The researchers controlled for variables known to predict poor outcome, such as trauma level and trauma-related injury on CT. Even so, microbleeds significantly predicted worse outcome. Patients with both punctate and linear TMBs were twice as likely to have disability (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended ≤6) on follow-up.

One participant’s family donated his brain for further analysis after he died. Imaging with a more powerful MRI scanner and a detailed histologic analysis allowed the researchers to better understand the pathology.

The researchers found that what appeared as a punctate TMB on MRI corresponded to iron-laden macrophages in the perivascular space surrounding a vascular tree that extended over centimeters. That was surprising, the researchers say. They expected to see iron within the parenchyma, but they also found iron inside macrophages outside of the parenchyma between the vessel and neuropil, tracking alongside vessels.

The researchers say that finding signified that the extent of injury was more extensive than indicated on MRI and had consequences to cellular function over a larger area of brain. In fact, they suggest, punctate and linear TMBs may not be distinct entities: The difference in shape may be “an issue of resolution.”

The researchers conclude that TMBs could be biomarkers for vascular injury. They also note that the leakage of blood from damaged blood vessels can trigger an inflammatory response. The damage to vessels, the disruption of normal pathways of blood flow, and the influx of inflammatory cells could result in secondary injury to the brain tissue due to ischemia.

Thus, TMBs may also be useful biomarkers for identifying which patients are candidates for treatments that reduce ischemic damage or improve microvascular cerebral blood flow.

Traumatic microbleeds (TMBs) may indicate vascular injury and predict worse outcomes after even minor brain injury, according to a study at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

The study involved 439 adults with head injuries treated in the emergency department. The participants had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans within 48 hours of the injury and again during 4 subsequent visits. They also completed behavioral and outcome questionnaires.

Microbleeds appear as small dark lesions on MRI scans but are usually too small to be seen on computer tomography (CT) scans. Sometimes they appear as dots (punctate), sometimes they are linear. In previous studies, researchers examined TMBs in the acute phase of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke and found linear-appearing TMBs only in patients with TBI, suggesting that at least linear TMBs are consistent with trauma and might be the result of injured vessels. They conjectured that TMBs seen on MRI might be a form of traumatic vascular injury distinct from primary injury to the axons.

In this study, one-third of the patients had TMBs. More than half (58%) of the participants with severe head injury showed microbleeds, as did 27% of patients with mild injuries. In most patients with microbleeds, they appeared as linear streaks or dotted lesions. The study also revealed that the frontal lobes were the region most likely to show microbleeds.

The researchers controlled for variables known to predict poor outcome, such as trauma level and trauma-related injury on CT. Even so, microbleeds significantly predicted worse outcome. Patients with both punctate and linear TMBs were twice as likely to have disability (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended ≤6) on follow-up.

One participant’s family donated his brain for further analysis after he died. Imaging with a more powerful MRI scanner and a detailed histologic analysis allowed the researchers to better understand the pathology.

The researchers found that what appeared as a punctate TMB on MRI corresponded to iron-laden macrophages in the perivascular space surrounding a vascular tree that extended over centimeters. That was surprising, the researchers say. They expected to see iron within the parenchyma, but they also found iron inside macrophages outside of the parenchyma between the vessel and neuropil, tracking alongside vessels.

The researchers say that finding signified that the extent of injury was more extensive than indicated on MRI and had consequences to cellular function over a larger area of brain. In fact, they suggest, punctate and linear TMBs may not be distinct entities: The difference in shape may be “an issue of resolution.”

The researchers conclude that TMBs could be biomarkers for vascular injury. They also note that the leakage of blood from damaged blood vessels can trigger an inflammatory response. The damage to vessels, the disruption of normal pathways of blood flow, and the influx of inflammatory cells could result in secondary injury to the brain tissue due to ischemia.

Thus, TMBs may also be useful biomarkers for identifying which patients are candidates for treatments that reduce ischemic damage or improve microvascular cerebral blood flow.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Selecting pharmacologic treatment for migraines remains a challenge despite numerous studies investigating efficacy, cost-benefit analyses, and outcomes.

“There’s very little consistency in study design, making it difficult to make real-world comparisons,” said Carly Rodriguez, PharmD, FAMP, pharmacy director at Moda Health. Dr. Rodriguez presented data on the efficacy and pharmacoeconomic factors of migraine therapy at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

The paucity of translatable evidence makes comparing and evaluating newer migraine therapies – such as botulinum toxins and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors – particularly difficult.

These two injectable drug classes are not first-line treatments for migraine; they are currently reserved for patients who are refractory to at least one prophylactic treatment, but they offer important alternatives and additions to therapy.

“OnabotulinumtoxinA makes a good case because it costs less than a single ER visit, but there’s not enough supporting data,” Dr. Rodriguez said. According to a report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) that evaluated the clinical efficacy and economic impact associated with onabotulinumtoxinA, administering the drug saved $157/headache day averted for 20 baseline headaches per month and $223/headache day avoided for 15 baseline headaches per month.

OnabotulinumtoxinA administration showed a moderate yet significant health benefit in preventing chronic migraines by reducing the number of headache days patients experienced by more than 50%. No benefit for episodic migraines was observed.

Several single- and multicenter studies found that onabotulinumtoxinA produced positive outcomes such as a decreased number of visits to urgent care centers, a lower average number of migraines patients experienced, and improved quality of life.

An ICER report investigating CGRP inhibitors found that the cost of anti-CGRP therapy may not produce viable clinical benefits.

Both botulinum toxins and CGRP inhibitors require prior authorization, and their injectable dosage forms restrict the settings in which they are administered and dispensed. Because botulinum toxins must be administered by a health care professional, the vast majority of these drugs are restricted to medical settings, with brand-to-generic substitution often varying among health plans. For this reason, botulinum toxins rarely appear on formularies. Several health plans consider botulinum toxins interchangeable and may give prescribers options to select the botulinum toxin product of their choice.

According to Dr. Rodriguez, there is some variability as to whether CGRP therapies are available in community pharmacy settings or are restricted to specialty pharmacies. Additionally, some plans consider all CGRP inhibitors to be interchangeable, while others take a more conservative approach.

Overall, generic drugs continue to dominate migraine drug therapy, with triptans leading the way. Generics that are heavily prescribed include beta-blockers, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

More than 37 million people living in the United States suffer from migraines – approximately 8% of the overall population. Women are four times as likely to have migraines than men.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Selecting pharmacologic treatment for migraines remains a challenge despite numerous studies investigating efficacy, cost-benefit analyses, and outcomes.

“There’s very little consistency in study design, making it difficult to make real-world comparisons,” said Carly Rodriguez, PharmD, FAMP, pharmacy director at Moda Health. Dr. Rodriguez presented data on the efficacy and pharmacoeconomic factors of migraine therapy at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

The paucity of translatable evidence makes comparing and evaluating newer migraine therapies – such as botulinum toxins and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors – particularly difficult.

These two injectable drug classes are not first-line treatments for migraine; they are currently reserved for patients who are refractory to at least one prophylactic treatment, but they offer important alternatives and additions to therapy.

“OnabotulinumtoxinA makes a good case because it costs less than a single ER visit, but there’s not enough supporting data,” Dr. Rodriguez said. According to a report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) that evaluated the clinical efficacy and economic impact associated with onabotulinumtoxinA, administering the drug saved $157/headache day averted for 20 baseline headaches per month and $223/headache day avoided for 15 baseline headaches per month.

OnabotulinumtoxinA administration showed a moderate yet significant health benefit in preventing chronic migraines by reducing the number of headache days patients experienced by more than 50%. No benefit for episodic migraines was observed.

Several single- and multicenter studies found that onabotulinumtoxinA produced positive outcomes such as a decreased number of visits to urgent care centers, a lower average number of migraines patients experienced, and improved quality of life.

An ICER report investigating CGRP inhibitors found that the cost of anti-CGRP therapy may not produce viable clinical benefits.

Both botulinum toxins and CGRP inhibitors require prior authorization, and their injectable dosage forms restrict the settings in which they are administered and dispensed. Because botulinum toxins must be administered by a health care professional, the vast majority of these drugs are restricted to medical settings, with brand-to-generic substitution often varying among health plans. For this reason, botulinum toxins rarely appear on formularies. Several health plans consider botulinum toxins interchangeable and may give prescribers options to select the botulinum toxin product of their choice.

According to Dr. Rodriguez, there is some variability as to whether CGRP therapies are available in community pharmacy settings or are restricted to specialty pharmacies. Additionally, some plans consider all CGRP inhibitors to be interchangeable, while others take a more conservative approach.

Overall, generic drugs continue to dominate migraine drug therapy, with triptans leading the way. Generics that are heavily prescribed include beta-blockers, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

More than 37 million people living in the United States suffer from migraines – approximately 8% of the overall population. Women are four times as likely to have migraines than men.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Selecting pharmacologic treatment for migraines remains a challenge despite numerous studies investigating efficacy, cost-benefit analyses, and outcomes.

“There’s very little consistency in study design, making it difficult to make real-world comparisons,” said Carly Rodriguez, PharmD, FAMP, pharmacy director at Moda Health. Dr. Rodriguez presented data on the efficacy and pharmacoeconomic factors of migraine therapy at the annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

The paucity of translatable evidence makes comparing and evaluating newer migraine therapies – such as botulinum toxins and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors – particularly difficult.

These two injectable drug classes are not first-line treatments for migraine; they are currently reserved for patients who are refractory to at least one prophylactic treatment, but they offer important alternatives and additions to therapy.

“OnabotulinumtoxinA makes a good case because it costs less than a single ER visit, but there’s not enough supporting data,” Dr. Rodriguez said. According to a report from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) that evaluated the clinical efficacy and economic impact associated with onabotulinumtoxinA, administering the drug saved $157/headache day averted for 20 baseline headaches per month and $223/headache day avoided for 15 baseline headaches per month.

OnabotulinumtoxinA administration showed a moderate yet significant health benefit in preventing chronic migraines by reducing the number of headache days patients experienced by more than 50%. No benefit for episodic migraines was observed.

Several single- and multicenter studies found that onabotulinumtoxinA produced positive outcomes such as a decreased number of visits to urgent care centers, a lower average number of migraines patients experienced, and improved quality of life.

An ICER report investigating CGRP inhibitors found that the cost of anti-CGRP therapy may not produce viable clinical benefits.

Both botulinum toxins and CGRP inhibitors require prior authorization, and their injectable dosage forms restrict the settings in which they are administered and dispensed. Because botulinum toxins must be administered by a health care professional, the vast majority of these drugs are restricted to medical settings, with brand-to-generic substitution often varying among health plans. For this reason, botulinum toxins rarely appear on formularies. Several health plans consider botulinum toxins interchangeable and may give prescribers options to select the botulinum toxin product of their choice.

According to Dr. Rodriguez, there is some variability as to whether CGRP therapies are available in community pharmacy settings or are restricted to specialty pharmacies. Additionally, some plans consider all CGRP inhibitors to be interchangeable, while others take a more conservative approach.

Overall, generic drugs continue to dominate migraine drug therapy, with triptans leading the way. Generics that are heavily prescribed include beta-blockers, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

More than 37 million people living in the United States suffer from migraines – approximately 8% of the overall population. Women are four times as likely to have migraines than men.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved diroximel fumarate (Vumerity) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, according to an Oct. 30 announcement from its developers, Biogen and Alkermes.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The approval is based on pharmacokinetic studies that established the bioequivalence of diroximel fumarate and dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), and it relied in part on the safety and efficacy data for dimethyl fumarate, which was approved in 2013. Diroximel fumarate rapidly converts to monomethyl fumarate, the same active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate.

Diroximel fumarate may be better tolerated than dimethyl fumarate. A trial found that the newer drug has significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability, the developers of the drug announced in July. In addition, the drug application for diroximel fumarate included interim data from EVOLVE-MS-1, an ongoing, open-label, 2-year safety study evaluating diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Researchers found a 6.3% rate of treatment discontinuation attributable to adverse events. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of gastrointestinal adverse events.

Serious side effects of diroximel fumarate may include allergic reaction, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, decreases in white blood cell count, and liver problems. Flushing and stomach problems are the most common side effects, which may decrease over time.

Biogen plans to make diroximel fumarate available in the United States in the near future, the company said. Prescribing information is available online.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved diroximel fumarate (Vumerity) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, according to an Oct. 30 announcement from its developers, Biogen and Alkermes.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The approval is based on pharmacokinetic studies that established the bioequivalence of diroximel fumarate and dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), and it relied in part on the safety and efficacy data for dimethyl fumarate, which was approved in 2013. Diroximel fumarate rapidly converts to monomethyl fumarate, the same active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate.

Diroximel fumarate may be better tolerated than dimethyl fumarate. A trial found that the newer drug has significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability, the developers of the drug announced in July. In addition, the drug application for diroximel fumarate included interim data from EVOLVE-MS-1, an ongoing, open-label, 2-year safety study evaluating diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Researchers found a 6.3% rate of treatment discontinuation attributable to adverse events. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of gastrointestinal adverse events.

Serious side effects of diroximel fumarate may include allergic reaction, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, decreases in white blood cell count, and liver problems. Flushing and stomach problems are the most common side effects, which may decrease over time.

Biogen plans to make diroximel fumarate available in the United States in the near future, the company said. Prescribing information is available online.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved diroximel fumarate (Vumerity) for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, according to an Oct. 30 announcement from its developers, Biogen and Alkermes.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The approval is based on pharmacokinetic studies that established the bioequivalence of diroximel fumarate and dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), and it relied in part on the safety and efficacy data for dimethyl fumarate, which was approved in 2013. Diroximel fumarate rapidly converts to monomethyl fumarate, the same active metabolite as dimethyl fumarate.

Diroximel fumarate may be better tolerated than dimethyl fumarate. A trial found that the newer drug has significantly better gastrointestinal tolerability, the developers of the drug announced in July. In addition, the drug application for diroximel fumarate included interim data from EVOLVE-MS-1, an ongoing, open-label, 2-year safety study evaluating diroximel fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Researchers found a 6.3% rate of treatment discontinuation attributable to adverse events. Less than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of gastrointestinal adverse events.

Serious side effects of diroximel fumarate may include allergic reaction, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, decreases in white blood cell count, and liver problems. Flushing and stomach problems are the most common side effects, which may decrease over time.

Biogen plans to make diroximel fumarate available in the United States in the near future, the company said. Prescribing information is available online.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The net prices of drugs are increasing four times faster than the rate of inflation, despite being offset 43% from list prices.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

List prices increased by 232% from 2007 to 2018 (12% per year) and net prices increased 133% during that same time period. For Medicaid, the gross-to-net discount increased from 40% in 2007 to 68% in 2018. For all other payers, the increase was 22%-50% during that same period, Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, and colleagues reported at annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

The investigators also found a wide variation on discounts across therapeutic classes. For example, list price for drugs in the multiple sclerosis category increased 407% over the study period while net price increased 221%. Insulins came in second in terms of gross price increases (337%) but saw only net prices increases by 83% due to increasing discounts, according to Dr. Hernandez, assistant professor of pharmacy and therapeutics at the University of Pittsburgh.

List prices for noninsulin diabetes treatments tripled during the observation period, but net prices went up only 24%. List price increases were lowest in the antineoplastic class, averaging 135%, though there were only 34% in rebates to offset the list price, resulting in an average net price increase of 89%.

Research was based on pricing data supplied by investment firm SSR Health for branded products and U.S. sales reported by publicly traded companies. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute sponsored the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hernandez I et a. AMCP Nexus, poster U2.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The net prices of drugs are increasing four times faster than the rate of inflation, despite being offset 43% from list prices.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

List prices increased by 232% from 2007 to 2018 (12% per year) and net prices increased 133% during that same time period. For Medicaid, the gross-to-net discount increased from 40% in 2007 to 68% in 2018. For all other payers, the increase was 22%-50% during that same period, Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, and colleagues reported at annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

The investigators also found a wide variation on discounts across therapeutic classes. For example, list price for drugs in the multiple sclerosis category increased 407% over the study period while net price increased 221%. Insulins came in second in terms of gross price increases (337%) but saw only net prices increases by 83% due to increasing discounts, according to Dr. Hernandez, assistant professor of pharmacy and therapeutics at the University of Pittsburgh.

List prices for noninsulin diabetes treatments tripled during the observation period, but net prices went up only 24%. List price increases were lowest in the antineoplastic class, averaging 135%, though there were only 34% in rebates to offset the list price, resulting in an average net price increase of 89%.

Research was based on pricing data supplied by investment firm SSR Health for branded products and U.S. sales reported by publicly traded companies. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute sponsored the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hernandez I et a. AMCP Nexus, poster U2.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – The net prices of drugs are increasing four times faster than the rate of inflation, despite being offset 43% from list prices.

Kenishirotie/Thinkstock

List prices increased by 232% from 2007 to 2018 (12% per year) and net prices increased 133% during that same time period. For Medicaid, the gross-to-net discount increased from 40% in 2007 to 68% in 2018. For all other payers, the increase was 22%-50% during that same period, Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, and colleagues reported at annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.

The investigators also found a wide variation on discounts across therapeutic classes. For example, list price for drugs in the multiple sclerosis category increased 407% over the study period while net price increased 221%. Insulins came in second in terms of gross price increases (337%) but saw only net prices increases by 83% due to increasing discounts, according to Dr. Hernandez, assistant professor of pharmacy and therapeutics at the University of Pittsburgh.

List prices for noninsulin diabetes treatments tripled during the observation period, but net prices went up only 24%. List price increases were lowest in the antineoplastic class, averaging 135%, though there were only 34% in rebates to offset the list price, resulting in an average net price increase of 89%.

Research was based on pricing data supplied by investment firm SSR Health for branded products and U.S. sales reported by publicly traded companies. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute sponsored the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hernandez I et a. AMCP Nexus, poster U2.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) appear to have an increased risk of thromboembolic events if it is administered with a central venous access device (CVAD) when compared against those without a CVAD, according to a recent study.

Although CVADs can reliably deliver IVIg, they also represent an established risk factor for thromboembolic events, Ami Patel, PhD, a senior epidemiologist at CSL Behring, and colleagues noted on their poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.

The results suggest a need for physicians to be vigilant about patients’ potential risk factors for thromboembolic events, Dr. Patel said in an interview. Further research is planned, however, because the current study did not control for other risk factors or explore other possible confounding, she said.

Dr. Patel and her associates analyzed U.S. claims data (IBM/Truven MarketScan) from 2006 to 2018 and included all patients with a CIDP diagnosis claim and a postdiagnosis code for IVIg. A code for CVAD up to 2 months before CIDP diagnosis without removal before IVIg treatment ended determined those with CVAD exposure, and thromboembolic events included any codes related to arterial, venous, or vascular prostheses.

The researchers then compared patients in a case-control fashion, matching each one with a CVAD to five patients of similar demographics without a CVAD. Characteristics used for matching included medical insurance type, prescription data availability, sex, age, geographic region, and years enrolled in the database.

Among 7,447 patients with at least one IVIg claim, 11.8% (n = 882) had CVAD exposure and 88.2% (n = 6,565) did not. Of those without a CVAD, 3,642 patients were matched to patients with CVAD. A quarter (25.4%) of patients with a CVAD had a thromboembolic event, compared with 11.2% of matched patients without CVADs (P less than .0001).

In the year leading up to IVIg therapy, 16.9% of those with a CVAD and 10.9% of matched patients without one had a previous thromboembolic event (P less than .0001). Patients with a CVAD also had significantly higher rates of hypertension (51.9% vs. 45.0% with placebo; P less than .001) and anticoagulation therapy (7.0% vs. 5.2% with placebo; P less than .05). Differences between the groups were not significant for diabetes (26.9% vs. 24.2%) and hyperlipidemia (19.1% vs. 17.8%).

Occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery was the most common arterial thromboembolic outcome, occurring in 5.3% of those with a CVAD and in 2.8% of those without a CVAD. The most common venous thromboembolic event was acute venous embolism and thrombosis of lower-extremity deep vessels, which occurred in 7% of those with a CVAD and in 1.8% of those without.

The researchers also compared inpatient admissions and emergency department visits among those with and without a CVAD; both rates were higher in patients with a CVAD. Visits to the emergency department occurred at a rate of 0.14 events per month for those with a CVAD (2.01 distinct months with a claim) and 0.09 events per month for those without a CVAD (0.65 distinct months with a claim). Patients with a CVAD had 1.44 months with an inpatient admissions claim, in comparison with 0.41 months among matched patients without a CVAD. Inpatient admission frequency per month was 0.14 for those with a CVAD and 0.08 for those without.

The research was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Patel and two of the other five authors are employees of CSL Behring.

SOURCE: Patel A et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 94.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) appear to have an increased risk of thromboembolic events if it is administered with a central venous access device (CVAD) when compared against those without a CVAD, according to a recent study.

Although CVADs can reliably deliver IVIg, they also represent an established risk factor for thromboembolic events, Ami Patel, PhD, a senior epidemiologist at CSL Behring, and colleagues noted on their poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.

The results suggest a need for physicians to be vigilant about patients’ potential risk factors for thromboembolic events, Dr. Patel said in an interview. Further research is planned, however, because the current study did not control for other risk factors or explore other possible confounding, she said.

Dr. Patel and her associates analyzed U.S. claims data (IBM/Truven MarketScan) from 2006 to 2018 and included all patients with a CIDP diagnosis claim and a postdiagnosis code for IVIg. A code for CVAD up to 2 months before CIDP diagnosis without removal before IVIg treatment ended determined those with CVAD exposure, and thromboembolic events included any codes related to arterial, venous, or vascular prostheses.

The researchers then compared patients in a case-control fashion, matching each one with a CVAD to five patients of similar demographics without a CVAD. Characteristics used for matching included medical insurance type, prescription data availability, sex, age, geographic region, and years enrolled in the database.

Among 7,447 patients with at least one IVIg claim, 11.8% (n = 882) had CVAD exposure and 88.2% (n = 6,565) did not. Of those without a CVAD, 3,642 patients were matched to patients with CVAD. A quarter (25.4%) of patients with a CVAD had a thromboembolic event, compared with 11.2% of matched patients without CVADs (P less than .0001).

In the year leading up to IVIg therapy, 16.9% of those with a CVAD and 10.9% of matched patients without one had a previous thromboembolic event (P less than .0001). Patients with a CVAD also had significantly higher rates of hypertension (51.9% vs. 45.0% with placebo; P less than .001) and anticoagulation therapy (7.0% vs. 5.2% with placebo; P less than .05). Differences between the groups were not significant for diabetes (26.9% vs. 24.2%) and hyperlipidemia (19.1% vs. 17.8%).

Occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery was the most common arterial thromboembolic outcome, occurring in 5.3% of those with a CVAD and in 2.8% of those without a CVAD. The most common venous thromboembolic event was acute venous embolism and thrombosis of lower-extremity deep vessels, which occurred in 7% of those with a CVAD and in 1.8% of those without.

The researchers also compared inpatient admissions and emergency department visits among those with and without a CVAD; both rates were higher in patients with a CVAD. Visits to the emergency department occurred at a rate of 0.14 events per month for those with a CVAD (2.01 distinct months with a claim) and 0.09 events per month for those without a CVAD (0.65 distinct months with a claim). Patients with a CVAD had 1.44 months with an inpatient admissions claim, in comparison with 0.41 months among matched patients without a CVAD. Inpatient admission frequency per month was 0.14 for those with a CVAD and 0.08 for those without.

The research was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Patel and two of the other five authors are employees of CSL Behring.

SOURCE: Patel A et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 94.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) appear to have an increased risk of thromboembolic events if it is administered with a central venous access device (CVAD) when compared against those without a CVAD, according to a recent study.

Although CVADs can reliably deliver IVIg, they also represent an established risk factor for thromboembolic events, Ami Patel, PhD, a senior epidemiologist at CSL Behring, and colleagues noted on their poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.

The results suggest a need for physicians to be vigilant about patients’ potential risk factors for thromboembolic events, Dr. Patel said in an interview. Further research is planned, however, because the current study did not control for other risk factors or explore other possible confounding, she said.

Dr. Patel and her associates analyzed U.S. claims data (IBM/Truven MarketScan) from 2006 to 2018 and included all patients with a CIDP diagnosis claim and a postdiagnosis code for IVIg. A code for CVAD up to 2 months before CIDP diagnosis without removal before IVIg treatment ended determined those with CVAD exposure, and thromboembolic events included any codes related to arterial, venous, or vascular prostheses.

The researchers then compared patients in a case-control fashion, matching each one with a CVAD to five patients of similar demographics without a CVAD. Characteristics used for matching included medical insurance type, prescription data availability, sex, age, geographic region, and years enrolled in the database.

Among 7,447 patients with at least one IVIg claim, 11.8% (n = 882) had CVAD exposure and 88.2% (n = 6,565) did not. Of those without a CVAD, 3,642 patients were matched to patients with CVAD. A quarter (25.4%) of patients with a CVAD had a thromboembolic event, compared with 11.2% of matched patients without CVADs (P less than .0001).

In the year leading up to IVIg therapy, 16.9% of those with a CVAD and 10.9% of matched patients without one had a previous thromboembolic event (P less than .0001). Patients with a CVAD also had significantly higher rates of hypertension (51.9% vs. 45.0% with placebo; P less than .001) and anticoagulation therapy (7.0% vs. 5.2% with placebo; P less than .05). Differences between the groups were not significant for diabetes (26.9% vs. 24.2%) and hyperlipidemia (19.1% vs. 17.8%).

Occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery was the most common arterial thromboembolic outcome, occurring in 5.3% of those with a CVAD and in 2.8% of those without a CVAD. The most common venous thromboembolic event was acute venous embolism and thrombosis of lower-extremity deep vessels, which occurred in 7% of those with a CVAD and in 1.8% of those without.

The researchers also compared inpatient admissions and emergency department visits among those with and without a CVAD; both rates were higher in patients with a CVAD. Visits to the emergency department occurred at a rate of 0.14 events per month for those with a CVAD (2.01 distinct months with a claim) and 0.09 events per month for those without a CVAD (0.65 distinct months with a claim). Patients with a CVAD had 1.44 months with an inpatient admissions claim, in comparison with 0.41 months among matched patients without a CVAD. Inpatient admission frequency per month was 0.14 for those with a CVAD and 0.08 for those without.

The research was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Patel and two of the other five authors are employees of CSL Behring.

SOURCE: Patel A et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 94.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Treatment of boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) with an investigational nuclear factor–kappa B (NF-kB) inhibitor may slow disease progression as assessed by MRI and functional measures, according to an analysis of phase 2 trial data presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

The NF-kB pathway is “fundamental to the pathogenesis and biology of DMD,” said Richard Finkel, MD, chief of neurology at Nemours Children’s Health System in Orlando and principal investigator for the phase 2 study, known as MoveDMD.

A lack of dystrophin, combined with the mechanical stress of muscle contraction, activates the NF-kB pathway and inhibits muscle regeneration. “It is known that there is inflammation and fibrosis and release of cytokines early in life” in patients with DMD, Dr. Finkel said.

Independent of mutation

Edasalonexent is an NF-kB inhibitor that is being developed by Catabasis as a therapy for patients with DMD regardless of the genetic mutation that is causing the disease. It may be used as monotherapy or with other dystrophin-targeted treatments, Dr. Finkel said.

In a mouse model of DMD, an analog of the drug reduced muscle inflammation and increased the force of diaphragm muscle. To assess edasalonexent’s safety, pharmacokinetics, and effects on functional measures and MRI in patients with DMD, Dr. Finkel and colleagues conducted the MoveDMD trial. Investigators enrolled boys aged 4 years to younger than 8 years who were not receiving treatment with corticosteroids.

Researchers first examined drug safety and pharmacokinetics in 17 boys who received the treatment for 1 week. The investigators then followed 16 of these patients off treatment for as long as 6 months. This off-treatment period was followed by a phase 2, placebo-controlled period, during which the 16 patients and another 15 patients received edasalonexent 67 mg/kg/day, edasalonexent 100 mg/kg/day, or placebo for 12 weeks. Patients subsequently entered an open-label extension study.

Dr. Finkel presented a comparison of outcomes during the off-treatment period with outcomes during the open-label extension. “We used these boys as their own internal control, if you wish,” he said.

Creatine kinase levels decreased soon after treatment, as did other markers of muscle disease. The drug “seems to have an early and sustained biomarker response,” Dr. Finkel said.

Annualized rate of change on lower leg muscle MRI-T2 decreased. “There is a relative reduction and stabilization from week 12 all the way out through the open-label extension to 72 weeks,” he said. “It suggests that there is an early and sustained response in stabilization of the MRI as a biomarker.”

Timed function tests

A comparison of the annualized rates of change on timed function tests – including the 10-meter walk/run, time-to-stand, and four-stair-climb, and the North Star Ambulatory Assessment – during the off-treatment and on-treatment periods indicated slowing of disease progression with treatment. “Shortly after starting on drug ... there was a relative stabilization in each of these measures,” Dr. Finkel said.

In addition, the researchers observed an early signal of possible cardiac benefit. Mean heart rate at baseline was 99 bpm. On treatment, it decreased to 92 bpm. “Boys with DMD die typically of cardiomyopathy, so it is important to try to address the cardiac status,” he said.

The drug was safe and well tolerated. Most participants experienced mild gastrointestinal issues, which typically were transient. One serious adverse event during the trial occurred in a patient receiving placebo. Patients tended to have a stable body mass index during treatment, Dr. Finkel said.

During the open-label extension, patients had “clinically meaningful slowing of disease progression on edasalonexent,” relative to the off-treatment period, Dr. Finkel said. Investigators plan to further study edasalonexent for the treatment of DMD in a phase 3 trial. The phase 3 study, PolarisDMD, recently completed enrollment at 40 sites. Results could be available in about a year, Dr. Finkel said.

The study was sponsored by Catabasis. Dr. Finkel disclosed consulting work and grants or research support from Catabasis and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Finkel R et al. CNS 2019. Abstract PL1-3.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Treatment of boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) with an investigational nuclear factor–kappa B (NF-kB) inhibitor may slow disease progression as assessed by MRI and functional measures, according to an analysis of phase 2 trial data presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

The NF-kB pathway is “fundamental to the pathogenesis and biology of DMD,” said Richard Finkel, MD, chief of neurology at Nemours Children’s Health System in Orlando and principal investigator for the phase 2 study, known as MoveDMD.

A lack of dystrophin, combined with the mechanical stress of muscle contraction, activates the NF-kB pathway and inhibits muscle regeneration. “It is known that there is inflammation and fibrosis and release of cytokines early in life” in patients with DMD, Dr. Finkel said.

Independent of mutation

Edasalonexent is an NF-kB inhibitor that is being developed by Catabasis as a therapy for patients with DMD regardless of the genetic mutation that is causing the disease. It may be used as monotherapy or with other dystrophin-targeted treatments, Dr. Finkel said.

In a mouse model of DMD, an analog of the drug reduced muscle inflammation and increased the force of diaphragm muscle. To assess edasalonexent’s safety, pharmacokinetics, and effects on functional measures and MRI in patients with DMD, Dr. Finkel and colleagues conducted the MoveDMD trial. Investigators enrolled boys aged 4 years to younger than 8 years who were not receiving treatment with corticosteroids.

Researchers first examined drug safety and pharmacokinetics in 17 boys who received the treatment for 1 week. The investigators then followed 16 of these patients off treatment for as long as 6 months. This off-treatment period was followed by a phase 2, placebo-controlled period, during which the 16 patients and another 15 patients received edasalonexent 67 mg/kg/day, edasalonexent 100 mg/kg/day, or placebo for 12 weeks. Patients subsequently entered an open-label extension study.

Dr. Finkel presented a comparison of outcomes during the off-treatment period with outcomes during the open-label extension. “We used these boys as their own internal control, if you wish,” he said.

Creatine kinase levels decreased soon after treatment, as did other markers of muscle disease. The drug “seems to have an early and sustained biomarker response,” Dr. Finkel said.

Annualized rate of change on lower leg muscle MRI-T2 decreased. “There is a relative reduction and stabilization from week 12 all the way out through the open-label extension to 72 weeks,” he said. “It suggests that there is an early and sustained response in stabilization of the MRI as a biomarker.”

Timed function tests

A comparison of the annualized rates of change on timed function tests – including the 10-meter walk/run, time-to-stand, and four-stair-climb, and the North Star Ambulatory Assessment – during the off-treatment and on-treatment periods indicated slowing of disease progression with treatment. “Shortly after starting on drug ... there was a relative stabilization in each of these measures,” Dr. Finkel said.

In addition, the researchers observed an early signal of possible cardiac benefit. Mean heart rate at baseline was 99 bpm. On treatment, it decreased to 92 bpm. “Boys with DMD die typically of cardiomyopathy, so it is important to try to address the cardiac status,” he said.

The drug was safe and well tolerated. Most participants experienced mild gastrointestinal issues, which typically were transient. One serious adverse event during the trial occurred in a patient receiving placebo. Patients tended to have a stable body mass index during treatment, Dr. Finkel said.

During the open-label extension, patients had “clinically meaningful slowing of disease progression on edasalonexent,” relative to the off-treatment period, Dr. Finkel said. Investigators plan to further study edasalonexent for the treatment of DMD in a phase 3 trial. The phase 3 study, PolarisDMD, recently completed enrollment at 40 sites. Results could be available in about a year, Dr. Finkel said.

The study was sponsored by Catabasis. Dr. Finkel disclosed consulting work and grants or research support from Catabasis and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Finkel R et al. CNS 2019. Abstract PL1-3.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Treatment of boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) with an investigational nuclear factor–kappa B (NF-kB) inhibitor may slow disease progression as assessed by MRI and functional measures, according to an analysis of phase 2 trial data presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

The NF-kB pathway is “fundamental to the pathogenesis and biology of DMD,” said Richard Finkel, MD, chief of neurology at Nemours Children’s Health System in Orlando and principal investigator for the phase 2 study, known as MoveDMD.

A lack of dystrophin, combined with the mechanical stress of muscle contraction, activates the NF-kB pathway and inhibits muscle regeneration. “It is known that there is inflammation and fibrosis and release of cytokines early in life” in patients with DMD, Dr. Finkel said.

Independent of mutation

Edasalonexent is an NF-kB inhibitor that is being developed by Catabasis as a therapy for patients with DMD regardless of the genetic mutation that is causing the disease. It may be used as monotherapy or with other dystrophin-targeted treatments, Dr. Finkel said.

In a mouse model of DMD, an analog of the drug reduced muscle inflammation and increased the force of diaphragm muscle. To assess edasalonexent’s safety, pharmacokinetics, and effects on functional measures and MRI in patients with DMD, Dr. Finkel and colleagues conducted the MoveDMD trial. Investigators enrolled boys aged 4 years to younger than 8 years who were not receiving treatment with corticosteroids.

Researchers first examined drug safety and pharmacokinetics in 17 boys who received the treatment for 1 week. The investigators then followed 16 of these patients off treatment for as long as 6 months. This off-treatment period was followed by a phase 2, placebo-controlled period, during which the 16 patients and another 15 patients received edasalonexent 67 mg/kg/day, edasalonexent 100 mg/kg/day, or placebo for 12 weeks. Patients subsequently entered an open-label extension study.

Dr. Finkel presented a comparison of outcomes during the off-treatment period with outcomes during the open-label extension. “We used these boys as their own internal control, if you wish,” he said.

Creatine kinase levels decreased soon after treatment, as did other markers of muscle disease. The drug “seems to have an early and sustained biomarker response,” Dr. Finkel said.

Annualized rate of change on lower leg muscle MRI-T2 decreased. “There is a relative reduction and stabilization from week 12 all the way out through the open-label extension to 72 weeks,” he said. “It suggests that there is an early and sustained response in stabilization of the MRI as a biomarker.”

Timed function tests

A comparison of the annualized rates of change on timed function tests – including the 10-meter walk/run, time-to-stand, and four-stair-climb, and the North Star Ambulatory Assessment – during the off-treatment and on-treatment periods indicated slowing of disease progression with treatment. “Shortly after starting on drug ... there was a relative stabilization in each of these measures,” Dr. Finkel said.

In addition, the researchers observed an early signal of possible cardiac benefit. Mean heart rate at baseline was 99 bpm. On treatment, it decreased to 92 bpm. “Boys with DMD die typically of cardiomyopathy, so it is important to try to address the cardiac status,” he said.

The drug was safe and well tolerated. Most participants experienced mild gastrointestinal issues, which typically were transient. One serious adverse event during the trial occurred in a patient receiving placebo. Patients tended to have a stable body mass index during treatment, Dr. Finkel said.

During the open-label extension, patients had “clinically meaningful slowing of disease progression on edasalonexent,” relative to the off-treatment period, Dr. Finkel said. Investigators plan to further study edasalonexent for the treatment of DMD in a phase 3 trial. The phase 3 study, PolarisDMD, recently completed enrollment at 40 sites. Results could be available in about a year, Dr. Finkel said.

The study was sponsored by Catabasis. Dr. Finkel disclosed consulting work and grants or research support from Catabasis and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Finkel R et al. CNS 2019. Abstract PL1-3.