Jim Kling

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

SEATTLE — Tissue resident memory (TRM) T cells are a hot topic lately in the treatment of psoriasis. These cells reside in the skin and other tissues and promote the inflammatory response, likely contributing to psoriasis symptoms. In fact, flare-ups often recur at the same site, a phenomenon that might be driven by these resident memory cells, according to Liv Eidsmo, MD, PhD.

This has led to their use as biomarkers in clinical trials for new therapies, but TRM T cells have a complex biology that is far from fully understood, Dr. Eidsmo said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “With time, we’re understanding that the regulation of the functionality is more complicated than we thought, so following these cells as a positive outcome of a clinical trial is a little bit premature,” said Dr. Eidsmo, who is a consultant dermatologist at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Treatment strategies focus on inhibition of interleukin (IL)-23, which is an activator of TRM T cells and probably keeps them alive, according to Dr. Eidsmo. “The hope is that these cells can be silenced by IL-23 inhibition, which is a great idea, and it probably works. It’s just a matter of what is the readout of long-term remission, because the big challenge in the clinical world is when do we stop these expensive biological treatments? When can we feel secure that patients are in deep remission?” she asked.

TRM cells are also far from the only immune cells involved in psoriasis. Others include keratinocytes, Langerhans cells, and fibroblasts. Dr. Eidsmo referenced a recent spatial analysis that used single-cell and spatial RNA sequencing to identify the localization of specific cell populations and inflammatory pathways within psoriasis lesions and epidermal compartments as well as also suggested crosstalk links between cell types. Epigenetic changes in stem cells may also maintain a lower threshold for tissue inflammation.

Dr. Eidsmo advised caution in eliminating TRM T cells, which play a key role in protecting against melanoma and other cancers, especially later in life. “We don’t want to get rid of them. We want to have the right balance.”

She noted a study in her own lab that mapped TRM T cells in healthy epidermis and found that they could be renewed from both circulating precursors and cells within the epidermis. “So getting rid of the mature TRM T cells will most likely just lead to a new generation of the same subset.”

Other data show that there are a wide range of subsets of TRM T cells, and she recommended focusing on the functionality of TRM T cells rather than sheer numbers. “This is something we’re working on now: Can we change the functionality [of TRM T cells], rather than eradicate them and hope for the best in the next generation? Can we change the functionality of the T cells we already have in the skin?”

There is also epigenetic data in TRM T cells, keratinocytes, stem cells, and other cells thus suggesting complexity and plasticity in the system that remains poorly understood. 

Taken together, the research is at too early of a stage to be clinically useful, said Dr. Eidsmo. “We need to go back to the drawing board and just realize what we need to measure, and with the new techniques coming out, maybe spatial [measurement] at a high resolution, we can find biomarkers that better dictate the future of this. Be a little bit wary when you read the outcomes from the clinical trials that are ongoing, because right now, it’s a bit of a race between different biologics. These cells are used as a readout of efficacy of the treatments, and we’re not quite there yet.”

During the Q&A session after the presentation, one audience member asked about the heterogeneity of cells found within the skin of patients with psoriasis and pointed out that many proinflammatory cells likely play a role in tumor control. Dr. Eidsmo responded that her group’s analysis of a large database of patients with metastatic melanoma found that a factor that is important to the development of TRM T cells was strongly correlated to survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade. “So we really don’t want to eradicate them,” she said.

Also during the Q&A, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, commented about the need to understand the previous events that drove the creation of memory T cells. “For me, the question is about the hierarchy, the primacy of what really drives the memory. In the infectious world, we’re trained to think [that memory responses] are T cell driven memory, but I wonder whether you have an idea of whether the T cell is responding to other memories, particularly in the stroma. Because certainly in the arthropathies, we have really good evidence now of epigenetic change in the synovial stroma and subsets,” said Dr. McInnes, who is director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

Dr. Eidsmo responded that she believes responses are different among different individuals. “We know too little about how these two systems interact with one another. I think the TRM T cells are very good at amplifying the stroma to recruit cells in. I think we need to think of two-step therapies. You need to normalize this [stromal] environment. How you can do that, I don’t know.”

Dr. McInnes agreed. “As a myeloid doctor, I strongly believe that perpetuators are innate and the adaptive is following on. But how do we test that? That’s really hard,” he said. 

Dr. Eidsmo did not list any disclosures. Dr. McInnes has financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Compugen, Cabaletta, Causeway, Dextera, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Versus Arthritis, MRC, and UCB. 

SEATTLE — Tissue resident memory (TRM) T cells are a hot topic lately in the treatment of psoriasis. These cells reside in the skin and other tissues and promote the inflammatory response, likely contributing to psoriasis symptoms. In fact, flare-ups often recur at the same site, a phenomenon that might be driven by these resident memory cells, according to Liv Eidsmo, MD, PhD.

This has led to their use as biomarkers in clinical trials for new therapies, but TRM T cells have a complex biology that is far from fully understood, Dr. Eidsmo said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “With time, we’re understanding that the regulation of the functionality is more complicated than we thought, so following these cells as a positive outcome of a clinical trial is a little bit premature,” said Dr. Eidsmo, who is a consultant dermatologist at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Treatment strategies focus on inhibition of interleukin (IL)-23, which is an activator of TRM T cells and probably keeps them alive, according to Dr. Eidsmo. “The hope is that these cells can be silenced by IL-23 inhibition, which is a great idea, and it probably works. It’s just a matter of what is the readout of long-term remission, because the big challenge in the clinical world is when do we stop these expensive biological treatments? When can we feel secure that patients are in deep remission?” she asked.

TRM cells are also far from the only immune cells involved in psoriasis. Others include keratinocytes, Langerhans cells, and fibroblasts. Dr. Eidsmo referenced a recent spatial analysis that used single-cell and spatial RNA sequencing to identify the localization of specific cell populations and inflammatory pathways within psoriasis lesions and epidermal compartments as well as also suggested crosstalk links between cell types. Epigenetic changes in stem cells may also maintain a lower threshold for tissue inflammation.

Dr. Eidsmo advised caution in eliminating TRM T cells, which play a key role in protecting against melanoma and other cancers, especially later in life. “We don’t want to get rid of them. We want to have the right balance.”

She noted a study in her own lab that mapped TRM T cells in healthy epidermis and found that they could be renewed from both circulating precursors and cells within the epidermis. “So getting rid of the mature TRM T cells will most likely just lead to a new generation of the same subset.”

Other data show that there are a wide range of subsets of TRM T cells, and she recommended focusing on the functionality of TRM T cells rather than sheer numbers. “This is something we’re working on now: Can we change the functionality [of TRM T cells], rather than eradicate them and hope for the best in the next generation? Can we change the functionality of the T cells we already have in the skin?”

There is also epigenetic data in TRM T cells, keratinocytes, stem cells, and other cells thus suggesting complexity and plasticity in the system that remains poorly understood. 

Taken together, the research is at too early of a stage to be clinically useful, said Dr. Eidsmo. “We need to go back to the drawing board and just realize what we need to measure, and with the new techniques coming out, maybe spatial [measurement] at a high resolution, we can find biomarkers that better dictate the future of this. Be a little bit wary when you read the outcomes from the clinical trials that are ongoing, because right now, it’s a bit of a race between different biologics. These cells are used as a readout of efficacy of the treatments, and we’re not quite there yet.”

During the Q&A session after the presentation, one audience member asked about the heterogeneity of cells found within the skin of patients with psoriasis and pointed out that many proinflammatory cells likely play a role in tumor control. Dr. Eidsmo responded that her group’s analysis of a large database of patients with metastatic melanoma found that a factor that is important to the development of TRM T cells was strongly correlated to survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade. “So we really don’t want to eradicate them,” she said.

Also during the Q&A, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, commented about the need to understand the previous events that drove the creation of memory T cells. “For me, the question is about the hierarchy, the primacy of what really drives the memory. In the infectious world, we’re trained to think [that memory responses] are T cell driven memory, but I wonder whether you have an idea of whether the T cell is responding to other memories, particularly in the stroma. Because certainly in the arthropathies, we have really good evidence now of epigenetic change in the synovial stroma and subsets,” said Dr. McInnes, who is director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

Dr. Eidsmo responded that she believes responses are different among different individuals. “We know too little about how these two systems interact with one another. I think the TRM T cells are very good at amplifying the stroma to recruit cells in. I think we need to think of two-step therapies. You need to normalize this [stromal] environment. How you can do that, I don’t know.”

Dr. McInnes agreed. “As a myeloid doctor, I strongly believe that perpetuators are innate and the adaptive is following on. But how do we test that? That’s really hard,” he said. 

Dr. Eidsmo did not list any disclosures. Dr. McInnes has financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Compugen, Cabaletta, Causeway, Dextera, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Versus Arthritis, MRC, and UCB. 

SEATTLE — Tissue resident memory (TRM) T cells are a hot topic lately in the treatment of psoriasis. These cells reside in the skin and other tissues and promote the inflammatory response, likely contributing to psoriasis symptoms. In fact, flare-ups often recur at the same site, a phenomenon that might be driven by these resident memory cells, according to Liv Eidsmo, MD, PhD.

This has led to their use as biomarkers in clinical trials for new therapies, but TRM T cells have a complex biology that is far from fully understood, Dr. Eidsmo said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “With time, we’re understanding that the regulation of the functionality is more complicated than we thought, so following these cells as a positive outcome of a clinical trial is a little bit premature,” said Dr. Eidsmo, who is a consultant dermatologist at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Treatment strategies focus on inhibition of interleukin (IL)-23, which is an activator of TRM T cells and probably keeps them alive, according to Dr. Eidsmo. “The hope is that these cells can be silenced by IL-23 inhibition, which is a great idea, and it probably works. It’s just a matter of what is the readout of long-term remission, because the big challenge in the clinical world is when do we stop these expensive biological treatments? When can we feel secure that patients are in deep remission?” she asked.

TRM cells are also far from the only immune cells involved in psoriasis. Others include keratinocytes, Langerhans cells, and fibroblasts. Dr. Eidsmo referenced a recent spatial analysis that used single-cell and spatial RNA sequencing to identify the localization of specific cell populations and inflammatory pathways within psoriasis lesions and epidermal compartments as well as also suggested crosstalk links between cell types. Epigenetic changes in stem cells may also maintain a lower threshold for tissue inflammation.

Dr. Eidsmo advised caution in eliminating TRM T cells, which play a key role in protecting against melanoma and other cancers, especially later in life. “We don’t want to get rid of them. We want to have the right balance.”

She noted a study in her own lab that mapped TRM T cells in healthy epidermis and found that they could be renewed from both circulating precursors and cells within the epidermis. “So getting rid of the mature TRM T cells will most likely just lead to a new generation of the same subset.”

Other data show that there are a wide range of subsets of TRM T cells, and she recommended focusing on the functionality of TRM T cells rather than sheer numbers. “This is something we’re working on now: Can we change the functionality [of TRM T cells], rather than eradicate them and hope for the best in the next generation? Can we change the functionality of the T cells we already have in the skin?”

There is also epigenetic data in TRM T cells, keratinocytes, stem cells, and other cells thus suggesting complexity and plasticity in the system that remains poorly understood. 

Taken together, the research is at too early of a stage to be clinically useful, said Dr. Eidsmo. “We need to go back to the drawing board and just realize what we need to measure, and with the new techniques coming out, maybe spatial [measurement] at a high resolution, we can find biomarkers that better dictate the future of this. Be a little bit wary when you read the outcomes from the clinical trials that are ongoing, because right now, it’s a bit of a race between different biologics. These cells are used as a readout of efficacy of the treatments, and we’re not quite there yet.”

During the Q&A session after the presentation, one audience member asked about the heterogeneity of cells found within the skin of patients with psoriasis and pointed out that many proinflammatory cells likely play a role in tumor control. Dr. Eidsmo responded that her group’s analysis of a large database of patients with metastatic melanoma found that a factor that is important to the development of TRM T cells was strongly correlated to survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade. “So we really don’t want to eradicate them,” she said.

Also during the Q&A, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, commented about the need to understand the previous events that drove the creation of memory T cells. “For me, the question is about the hierarchy, the primacy of what really drives the memory. In the infectious world, we’re trained to think [that memory responses] are T cell driven memory, but I wonder whether you have an idea of whether the T cell is responding to other memories, particularly in the stroma. Because certainly in the arthropathies, we have really good evidence now of epigenetic change in the synovial stroma and subsets,” said Dr. McInnes, who is director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

Dr. Eidsmo responded that she believes responses are different among different individuals. “We know too little about how these two systems interact with one another. I think the TRM T cells are very good at amplifying the stroma to recruit cells in. I think we need to think of two-step therapies. You need to normalize this [stromal] environment. How you can do that, I don’t know.”

Dr. McInnes agreed. “As a myeloid doctor, I strongly believe that perpetuators are innate and the adaptive is following on. But how do we test that? That’s really hard,” he said. 

Dr. Eidsmo did not list any disclosures. Dr. McInnes has financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Compugen, Cabaletta, Causeway, Dextera, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Versus Arthritis, MRC, and UCB. 

SEATTLE — Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common in patients with psoriasis, but should they be primarily handled by dermatologists or should rheumatologists be “in the driver’s seat?” That was the subject of a debate between a dermatologist and a rheumatologist at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Fabian Proft, MD, the rheumatologist, spoke first and emphasized the potential that MSK symptoms are a sign of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and therefore should be managed by a rheumatologist.

“Obviously, the rheumatologist perspective [is that] I should be in the driver’s seat when taking care of patient with psoriasis and MSK symptoms, but I will still need to have a copilot there: [The dermatologist] will have a slot,” said Dr. Proft, who is a rheumatologist at Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

“It’s so important that we make the correct and early diagnosis of [psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis] symptoms,” said Dr. Proft. He specifically called out cases where patients have symptoms that are difficult to determine, whether the cause is inflammatory, and when experience with imaging can be a key factor in the diagnosis.

It’s important not to overdiagnose or overtreat patients, he said, providing an example of a patient with psoriasis who had been training for a marathon. The MRI image suggested that his Achilles tendonitis pain was related to his athletic training, not PsA-associated inflammation. “So I think this is very important that you have the knowledge to read MRIs, and especially also carefully assessing them so as not to overdiagnose patients,” said Dr. Proft.

Dermatologist Rebuttal

In her rebuttal, Laura Savage, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for more of a coequal partnership between the two specialties because of the ability of dermatologists to intervene early in the treatment and prevention of PsA.

“Traditionally, I agree rheumatologists would solely be responsible for the assessment and the management of psoriatic arthritis, but I think that paradigm has shifted in part due to the increased recognition of the need for earlier intervention to limit disease progression and to reduce or even prevent functional limitation,” said Dr. Savage, who is a consultant dermatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and a senior lecturer at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England.

Ideally, molecular biomarkers would be available to predict the development of PsA, but there aren’t any. Still, “we have a huge biomarker in the form of the skin, and it’s recognized that the majority of patients who will develop psoriatic arthritis will have antecedent psoriasis in about 70% of cases,” Dr. Savage said. “There’s a typical time delay of around 7-12 years between the onset of the skin [disease] and the patients developing psoriatic arthritis, and so many of them are going to be into the care of other healthcare practitioners, and particularly the care of dermatologists.”

Dermatologists may also be able to play a role in the prevention of PsA, according to Dr. Savage. In one retrospective study, treatment of skin lesions with biologics was associated with a reduced frequency of progression to PsA (11.1% vs 16.4%) over 10 years (P = .0006). Studies with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other interventions have shown similar results.

Such findings have led to the treat intercept strategy, which targets patients with psoriasis who have risk factors for transition to PsA — such as nail pitting, gluteal cleft disease, scalp disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and a first-degree relative with PsA — as well as symptoms of prodromal PSA, such as arthralgia and fatigue.

“I think dermatologists are aware of the need to not leave our patients languishing on these therapies and actually escalating them onto effective treatments that may also be able to treat early psoriatic arthritis. We could be more mindful about our choice of treatments for these patients, going on to thinking about their increased risk of PSA and trying to intercept,” Dr. Savage said. “What we don’t want is our patients to be developing these musculoskeletal symptoms of pain and stiffness and functional limitation and disability. We want to be treating the patients with musculoskeletal symptoms of that earlier prodromal phase when they’re developing arthralgia and fatigue.”

She conceded that more complicated patients are good candidates for care by the rheumatologist. “You can do your fancy imaging, and we’ll leave that to you, and the difficult-to-treat patients to [the rheumatologist], but actually we need to just get on and treat them,” she said. “One could argue as well that as a dermatologist, I’m likely to broaden my horizons in terms of choice of therapy and treat all of the domains of the patient. So I would argue that actually it should be the dermatologist who is in that driving seat, particularly when it comes to the management of early psoriatic arthritis, and actually what we should be doing is driving our patients and steering them to earlier intervention and better control for all domains of disease.”
 

Collaborative Care

During the follow-up discussion, both Dr. Proft and Dr. Savage agreed that dermatologists and rheumatologists should be working together in managing patients. “What we need to do is steer our patients toward collaborative care with our rheumatologists by trying to minimize delays to treatment, by working together in parallel clinics, combined clinics, and on virtual [multidisciplinary teams],” said Dr. Savage.

Dr. Proft agreed. “We should join forces and make decisions together.”

Dr. Savage and Dr. Proft did not provide any financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE — Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common in patients with psoriasis, but should they be primarily handled by dermatologists or should rheumatologists be “in the driver’s seat?” That was the subject of a debate between a dermatologist and a rheumatologist at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Fabian Proft, MD, the rheumatologist, spoke first and emphasized the potential that MSK symptoms are a sign of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and therefore should be managed by a rheumatologist.

“Obviously, the rheumatologist perspective [is that] I should be in the driver’s seat when taking care of patient with psoriasis and MSK symptoms, but I will still need to have a copilot there: [The dermatologist] will have a slot,” said Dr. Proft, who is a rheumatologist at Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

“It’s so important that we make the correct and early diagnosis of [psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis] symptoms,” said Dr. Proft. He specifically called out cases where patients have symptoms that are difficult to determine, whether the cause is inflammatory, and when experience with imaging can be a key factor in the diagnosis.

It’s important not to overdiagnose or overtreat patients, he said, providing an example of a patient with psoriasis who had been training for a marathon. The MRI image suggested that his Achilles tendonitis pain was related to his athletic training, not PsA-associated inflammation. “So I think this is very important that you have the knowledge to read MRIs, and especially also carefully assessing them so as not to overdiagnose patients,” said Dr. Proft.

Dermatologist Rebuttal

In her rebuttal, Laura Savage, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for more of a coequal partnership between the two specialties because of the ability of dermatologists to intervene early in the treatment and prevention of PsA.

“Traditionally, I agree rheumatologists would solely be responsible for the assessment and the management of psoriatic arthritis, but I think that paradigm has shifted in part due to the increased recognition of the need for earlier intervention to limit disease progression and to reduce or even prevent functional limitation,” said Dr. Savage, who is a consultant dermatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and a senior lecturer at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England.

Ideally, molecular biomarkers would be available to predict the development of PsA, but there aren’t any. Still, “we have a huge biomarker in the form of the skin, and it’s recognized that the majority of patients who will develop psoriatic arthritis will have antecedent psoriasis in about 70% of cases,” Dr. Savage said. “There’s a typical time delay of around 7-12 years between the onset of the skin [disease] and the patients developing psoriatic arthritis, and so many of them are going to be into the care of other healthcare practitioners, and particularly the care of dermatologists.”

Dermatologists may also be able to play a role in the prevention of PsA, according to Dr. Savage. In one retrospective study, treatment of skin lesions with biologics was associated with a reduced frequency of progression to PsA (11.1% vs 16.4%) over 10 years (P = .0006). Studies with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other interventions have shown similar results.

Such findings have led to the treat intercept strategy, which targets patients with psoriasis who have risk factors for transition to PsA — such as nail pitting, gluteal cleft disease, scalp disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and a first-degree relative with PsA — as well as symptoms of prodromal PSA, such as arthralgia and fatigue.

“I think dermatologists are aware of the need to not leave our patients languishing on these therapies and actually escalating them onto effective treatments that may also be able to treat early psoriatic arthritis. We could be more mindful about our choice of treatments for these patients, going on to thinking about their increased risk of PSA and trying to intercept,” Dr. Savage said. “What we don’t want is our patients to be developing these musculoskeletal symptoms of pain and stiffness and functional limitation and disability. We want to be treating the patients with musculoskeletal symptoms of that earlier prodromal phase when they’re developing arthralgia and fatigue.”

She conceded that more complicated patients are good candidates for care by the rheumatologist. “You can do your fancy imaging, and we’ll leave that to you, and the difficult-to-treat patients to [the rheumatologist], but actually we need to just get on and treat them,” she said. “One could argue as well that as a dermatologist, I’m likely to broaden my horizons in terms of choice of therapy and treat all of the domains of the patient. So I would argue that actually it should be the dermatologist who is in that driving seat, particularly when it comes to the management of early psoriatic arthritis, and actually what we should be doing is driving our patients and steering them to earlier intervention and better control for all domains of disease.”
 

Collaborative Care

During the follow-up discussion, both Dr. Proft and Dr. Savage agreed that dermatologists and rheumatologists should be working together in managing patients. “What we need to do is steer our patients toward collaborative care with our rheumatologists by trying to minimize delays to treatment, by working together in parallel clinics, combined clinics, and on virtual [multidisciplinary teams],” said Dr. Savage.

Dr. Proft agreed. “We should join forces and make decisions together.”

Dr. Savage and Dr. Proft did not provide any financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE — Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common in patients with psoriasis, but should they be primarily handled by dermatologists or should rheumatologists be “in the driver’s seat?” That was the subject of a debate between a dermatologist and a rheumatologist at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Fabian Proft, MD, the rheumatologist, spoke first and emphasized the potential that MSK symptoms are a sign of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and therefore should be managed by a rheumatologist.

“Obviously, the rheumatologist perspective [is that] I should be in the driver’s seat when taking care of patient with psoriasis and MSK symptoms, but I will still need to have a copilot there: [The dermatologist] will have a slot,” said Dr. Proft, who is a rheumatologist at Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

“It’s so important that we make the correct and early diagnosis of [psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis] symptoms,” said Dr. Proft. He specifically called out cases where patients have symptoms that are difficult to determine, whether the cause is inflammatory, and when experience with imaging can be a key factor in the diagnosis.

It’s important not to overdiagnose or overtreat patients, he said, providing an example of a patient with psoriasis who had been training for a marathon. The MRI image suggested that his Achilles tendonitis pain was related to his athletic training, not PsA-associated inflammation. “So I think this is very important that you have the knowledge to read MRIs, and especially also carefully assessing them so as not to overdiagnose patients,” said Dr. Proft.

Dermatologist Rebuttal

In her rebuttal, Laura Savage, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for more of a coequal partnership between the two specialties because of the ability of dermatologists to intervene early in the treatment and prevention of PsA.

“Traditionally, I agree rheumatologists would solely be responsible for the assessment and the management of psoriatic arthritis, but I think that paradigm has shifted in part due to the increased recognition of the need for earlier intervention to limit disease progression and to reduce or even prevent functional limitation,” said Dr. Savage, who is a consultant dermatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and a senior lecturer at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England.

Ideally, molecular biomarkers would be available to predict the development of PsA, but there aren’t any. Still, “we have a huge biomarker in the form of the skin, and it’s recognized that the majority of patients who will develop psoriatic arthritis will have antecedent psoriasis in about 70% of cases,” Dr. Savage said. “There’s a typical time delay of around 7-12 years between the onset of the skin [disease] and the patients developing psoriatic arthritis, and so many of them are going to be into the care of other healthcare practitioners, and particularly the care of dermatologists.”

Dermatologists may also be able to play a role in the prevention of PsA, according to Dr. Savage. In one retrospective study, treatment of skin lesions with biologics was associated with a reduced frequency of progression to PsA (11.1% vs 16.4%) over 10 years (P = .0006). Studies with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other interventions have shown similar results.

Such findings have led to the treat intercept strategy, which targets patients with psoriasis who have risk factors for transition to PsA — such as nail pitting, gluteal cleft disease, scalp disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and a first-degree relative with PsA — as well as symptoms of prodromal PSA, such as arthralgia and fatigue.

“I think dermatologists are aware of the need to not leave our patients languishing on these therapies and actually escalating them onto effective treatments that may also be able to treat early psoriatic arthritis. We could be more mindful about our choice of treatments for these patients, going on to thinking about their increased risk of PSA and trying to intercept,” Dr. Savage said. “What we don’t want is our patients to be developing these musculoskeletal symptoms of pain and stiffness and functional limitation and disability. We want to be treating the patients with musculoskeletal symptoms of that earlier prodromal phase when they’re developing arthralgia and fatigue.”

She conceded that more complicated patients are good candidates for care by the rheumatologist. “You can do your fancy imaging, and we’ll leave that to you, and the difficult-to-treat patients to [the rheumatologist], but actually we need to just get on and treat them,” she said. “One could argue as well that as a dermatologist, I’m likely to broaden my horizons in terms of choice of therapy and treat all of the domains of the patient. So I would argue that actually it should be the dermatologist who is in that driving seat, particularly when it comes to the management of early psoriatic arthritis, and actually what we should be doing is driving our patients and steering them to earlier intervention and better control for all domains of disease.”
 

Collaborative Care

During the follow-up discussion, both Dr. Proft and Dr. Savage agreed that dermatologists and rheumatologists should be working together in managing patients. “What we need to do is steer our patients toward collaborative care with our rheumatologists by trying to minimize delays to treatment, by working together in parallel clinics, combined clinics, and on virtual [multidisciplinary teams],” said Dr. Savage.

Dr. Proft agreed. “We should join forces and make decisions together.”

Dr. Savage and Dr. Proft did not provide any financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the phase 3 ALLEVIATE study, eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck) failed to achieve a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome of reducing the number of weekly attacks from week 1 to week 2 in patients with episodic cluster headache. However, the drug met secondary outcomes of reduction in weekly attacks, mean change in baseline pain, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score.

Eptinezumab is the latest of multiple anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies to fail in the clinic against episodic cluster headache, all using weekly attacks as a primary endpoint, though therapies also scored positive results for secondary endpoints, according to Stewart Tepper, MD, who presented the study results at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Eptinezumab is already approved for migraine, and is fully bioavailable by the end of an infusion. “That was why we thought this might be a really interesting treatment for prevention of cluster headache,” said Dr. Tepper, who is VP of external research at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.
 

Are We Looking at the Wrong Endpoint?

Secondary endpoints offered more encouragement. “For each week, the eptinezumab looked either numerically higher than the placebo or nominal statistical significance was achieved. By week 4, two-thirds of the patients had at least a 50% reduction in their number of weekly cluster attacks. Then the average pain intensity for the day and the patient global impression of change were all in favor of eptinezumab. That made us interested in whether we’re missing something, whether this is maybe not the correct endpoint to be looking at,” said Dr. Tepper.

He suggested that it may be time for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reconsider the endpoints used in clinical trials for cluster headaches.

Study criteria included cluster periods that lasted at least 6 weeks, and at least 1 year since the diagnosis of episodic cluster headache. The study enrolled patients who were out of their cluster period, who underwent a second screening of 7-14 days after they entered a new cycle. After that, they were randomized to an injection of placebo or 400 mg eptinezumab, and followed for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, all patients received an injection of 400 mg eptinezumab and placebo patients were crossed over to eptinezumab and followed out to 24 weeks.

The study population included 231 patients (78% male; mean age, 44 years), with a mean of 2.7 cluster headache attacks per day an average duration of 62 minutes per attack. The worst pain was reported as excruciating in 59% of participants.

The mean change in number of weekly attacks in weeks 1 and 2, compared with baseline, was not statistically significant (–4.6 with eptinezumab, –4.6 with placebo; P = .5048). More patients in the eptinezumab group had a 50% or greater reduction in attack frequency in weeks 3 (50.9% vs 37.3%; P < .05), week 3 (62.5% vs 43.8%; P < .01), and week 4 (66.7% vs 50.5%; P < .01). The difference in mean change in pain from baseline became statistically significant at week 3 and 4 (P < .01). There were also statistically significant differences in PGIC score at weeks 1, 2, and 4. The frequency of any treatment-emergent adverse event was similar in the eptinezumab and placebo groups (25.0% vs 26.5%), and only one led to treatment withdrawal in the eptinezumab group (0.9%).
 

Thoughts on Redesigning Cluster Headache Clinical Trials

During the Q&A session, Andrea Harriott, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the session’s moderator, asked Dr. Tepper for his thoughts on how to design a good cluster headache trial. “I think we should go to the regulators and say we’re looking at the wrong outcome measure, and that we should use responder rate as the primary endpoint. That’s my guess. I think after four failed cluster studies for anti-CGRP therapies in terms of primary endpoint, all of which suggest some benefit, I think maybe we are looking at the wrong endpoint,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper was also asked about the potential for comparative efficacy trials testing anti-CGRP versus usual therapy, or usual therapy combined with antibodies against usual therapy. He noted that he had coauthored a recent commentary that responded to International Headache Society 2022 guidelines for randomized, placebo-controlled trials in cluster headache. “We actually did suggest comparative effectiveness [trials], both for recruitment and for compassion, but one of the problems is that verapamil is not even FDA approved for cluster headache in the US, and galcanezumab (Emgality, Eli Lilly) [is not approved] in the EU, so it becomes difficult from a regulatory standpoint to set that up, and you have to have buy in from regulatory authorities,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper has financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including consulting for/advising Lundbeck, which funded the study. Dr. Harriott has served on the scientific advisory board of Theranica and has an authorship agreement with AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — In the phase 3 ALLEVIATE study, eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck) failed to achieve a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome of reducing the number of weekly attacks from week 1 to week 2 in patients with episodic cluster headache. However, the drug met secondary outcomes of reduction in weekly attacks, mean change in baseline pain, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score.

Eptinezumab is the latest of multiple anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies to fail in the clinic against episodic cluster headache, all using weekly attacks as a primary endpoint, though therapies also scored positive results for secondary endpoints, according to Stewart Tepper, MD, who presented the study results at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Eptinezumab is already approved for migraine, and is fully bioavailable by the end of an infusion. “That was why we thought this might be a really interesting treatment for prevention of cluster headache,” said Dr. Tepper, who is VP of external research at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.
 

Are We Looking at the Wrong Endpoint?

Secondary endpoints offered more encouragement. “For each week, the eptinezumab looked either numerically higher than the placebo or nominal statistical significance was achieved. By week 4, two-thirds of the patients had at least a 50% reduction in their number of weekly cluster attacks. Then the average pain intensity for the day and the patient global impression of change were all in favor of eptinezumab. That made us interested in whether we’re missing something, whether this is maybe not the correct endpoint to be looking at,” said Dr. Tepper.

He suggested that it may be time for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reconsider the endpoints used in clinical trials for cluster headaches.

Study criteria included cluster periods that lasted at least 6 weeks, and at least 1 year since the diagnosis of episodic cluster headache. The study enrolled patients who were out of their cluster period, who underwent a second screening of 7-14 days after they entered a new cycle. After that, they were randomized to an injection of placebo or 400 mg eptinezumab, and followed for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, all patients received an injection of 400 mg eptinezumab and placebo patients were crossed over to eptinezumab and followed out to 24 weeks.

The study population included 231 patients (78% male; mean age, 44 years), with a mean of 2.7 cluster headache attacks per day an average duration of 62 minutes per attack. The worst pain was reported as excruciating in 59% of participants.

The mean change in number of weekly attacks in weeks 1 and 2, compared with baseline, was not statistically significant (–4.6 with eptinezumab, –4.6 with placebo; P = .5048). More patients in the eptinezumab group had a 50% or greater reduction in attack frequency in weeks 3 (50.9% vs 37.3%; P < .05), week 3 (62.5% vs 43.8%; P < .01), and week 4 (66.7% vs 50.5%; P < .01). The difference in mean change in pain from baseline became statistically significant at week 3 and 4 (P < .01). There were also statistically significant differences in PGIC score at weeks 1, 2, and 4. The frequency of any treatment-emergent adverse event was similar in the eptinezumab and placebo groups (25.0% vs 26.5%), and only one led to treatment withdrawal in the eptinezumab group (0.9%).
 

Thoughts on Redesigning Cluster Headache Clinical Trials

During the Q&A session, Andrea Harriott, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the session’s moderator, asked Dr. Tepper for his thoughts on how to design a good cluster headache trial. “I think we should go to the regulators and say we’re looking at the wrong outcome measure, and that we should use responder rate as the primary endpoint. That’s my guess. I think after four failed cluster studies for anti-CGRP therapies in terms of primary endpoint, all of which suggest some benefit, I think maybe we are looking at the wrong endpoint,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper was also asked about the potential for comparative efficacy trials testing anti-CGRP versus usual therapy, or usual therapy combined with antibodies against usual therapy. He noted that he had coauthored a recent commentary that responded to International Headache Society 2022 guidelines for randomized, placebo-controlled trials in cluster headache. “We actually did suggest comparative effectiveness [trials], both for recruitment and for compassion, but one of the problems is that verapamil is not even FDA approved for cluster headache in the US, and galcanezumab (Emgality, Eli Lilly) [is not approved] in the EU, so it becomes difficult from a regulatory standpoint to set that up, and you have to have buy in from regulatory authorities,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper has financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including consulting for/advising Lundbeck, which funded the study. Dr. Harriott has served on the scientific advisory board of Theranica and has an authorship agreement with AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — In the phase 3 ALLEVIATE study, eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck) failed to achieve a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome of reducing the number of weekly attacks from week 1 to week 2 in patients with episodic cluster headache. However, the drug met secondary outcomes of reduction in weekly attacks, mean change in baseline pain, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score.

Eptinezumab is the latest of multiple anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies to fail in the clinic against episodic cluster headache, all using weekly attacks as a primary endpoint, though therapies also scored positive results for secondary endpoints, according to Stewart Tepper, MD, who presented the study results at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Eptinezumab is already approved for migraine, and is fully bioavailable by the end of an infusion. “That was why we thought this might be a really interesting treatment for prevention of cluster headache,” said Dr. Tepper, who is VP of external research at the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.
 

Are We Looking at the Wrong Endpoint?

Secondary endpoints offered more encouragement. “For each week, the eptinezumab looked either numerically higher than the placebo or nominal statistical significance was achieved. By week 4, two-thirds of the patients had at least a 50% reduction in their number of weekly cluster attacks. Then the average pain intensity for the day and the patient global impression of change were all in favor of eptinezumab. That made us interested in whether we’re missing something, whether this is maybe not the correct endpoint to be looking at,” said Dr. Tepper.

He suggested that it may be time for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reconsider the endpoints used in clinical trials for cluster headaches.

Study criteria included cluster periods that lasted at least 6 weeks, and at least 1 year since the diagnosis of episodic cluster headache. The study enrolled patients who were out of their cluster period, who underwent a second screening of 7-14 days after they entered a new cycle. After that, they were randomized to an injection of placebo or 400 mg eptinezumab, and followed for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, all patients received an injection of 400 mg eptinezumab and placebo patients were crossed over to eptinezumab and followed out to 24 weeks.

The study population included 231 patients (78% male; mean age, 44 years), with a mean of 2.7 cluster headache attacks per day an average duration of 62 minutes per attack. The worst pain was reported as excruciating in 59% of participants.

The mean change in number of weekly attacks in weeks 1 and 2, compared with baseline, was not statistically significant (–4.6 with eptinezumab, –4.6 with placebo; P = .5048). More patients in the eptinezumab group had a 50% or greater reduction in attack frequency in weeks 3 (50.9% vs 37.3%; P < .05), week 3 (62.5% vs 43.8%; P < .01), and week 4 (66.7% vs 50.5%; P < .01). The difference in mean change in pain from baseline became statistically significant at week 3 and 4 (P < .01). There were also statistically significant differences in PGIC score at weeks 1, 2, and 4. The frequency of any treatment-emergent adverse event was similar in the eptinezumab and placebo groups (25.0% vs 26.5%), and only one led to treatment withdrawal in the eptinezumab group (0.9%).
 

Thoughts on Redesigning Cluster Headache Clinical Trials

During the Q&A session, Andrea Harriott, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the session’s moderator, asked Dr. Tepper for his thoughts on how to design a good cluster headache trial. “I think we should go to the regulators and say we’re looking at the wrong outcome measure, and that we should use responder rate as the primary endpoint. That’s my guess. I think after four failed cluster studies for anti-CGRP therapies in terms of primary endpoint, all of which suggest some benefit, I think maybe we are looking at the wrong endpoint,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper was also asked about the potential for comparative efficacy trials testing anti-CGRP versus usual therapy, or usual therapy combined with antibodies against usual therapy. He noted that he had coauthored a recent commentary that responded to International Headache Society 2022 guidelines for randomized, placebo-controlled trials in cluster headache. “We actually did suggest comparative effectiveness [trials], both for recruitment and for compassion, but one of the problems is that verapamil is not even FDA approved for cluster headache in the US, and galcanezumab (Emgality, Eli Lilly) [is not approved] in the EU, so it becomes difficult from a regulatory standpoint to set that up, and you have to have buy in from regulatory authorities,” said Dr. Tepper.

Dr. Tepper has financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including consulting for/advising Lundbeck, which funded the study. Dr. Harriott has served on the scientific advisory board of Theranica and has an authorship agreement with AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — Migraine may be associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, ischemic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), but also a reduction in risk of hemorrhagic stroke in men, according to results from a retrospective analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data. Migraine was also linked to greater risk of cardiovascular disease, and the researchers found similar risk among both genders, with the exceptions of a larger stroke risk among women and larger risk of TIA among men.

Gender Matters

The research complements other studies, such as an analysis drawn from the Women’s Health Study, according to Alexandra Schwartz, a doctoral student at Yeshiva University, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. That study found a 53% increased risk of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.31) among 17,531 female subjects between the ages of 25 and 42. Another, smaller study in 1,400 men drawn from the Physicians Health study found an increased risk of major cardiovascular events of 1.24 (P = .008). Previous studies have shown that around two-thirds of VHA patients with migraine are male. “Our population gives us this really unique opportunity to look at men with migraine,” Ms. Schwartz said in an interview.

The differential risk factors among men and women are tantalizing. “Gender likely matters in terms of how migraine and stroke are related, and a number of other cardiovascular diseases,” said Ms. Schwartz.

Migraine has long been considered a disease of women, but 6% of men experience the condition, making it important to understand how migraine might affect cardiovascular result in men. “We would expect that there could be different underlying mechanisms in this kind of relationship ... it is absolutely worth understanding the extent to which this disease might impact their risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Elizabeth Seng, PhD, said in an interview. She is a professor at Yeshiva University and a research associate at Albert Einstein School of Medicine.

The researchers examined data from 2,006,905 veterans between 2008 and 2021, including 681,784 migraineurs (492,234 men; 189,430 women) and 1,325,121 controls (983,154 men; 341,967 women) that were matched based on age within a 5-year band, gender, race, ethnicity, and VHA site of care.

Among individuals diagnosed with migraine, there was an increased risk of ischemic stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% CI, 2.6-2.7), TIA (OR, 7.3; 95% CI, 6.8-7.7), cardiovascular disease (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 3.5-3.6), acute myocardial infarction (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.8), heart failure (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4), and unstable angina (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.5-2.8). There was an association between migraine and a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.4-0.5), but only in men. When the findings were analyzed by gender, the findings were generally similar with the exception of a statistically significant, larger risk of ischemic stroke in women (OR, 3.0 versus 2.6), and a trend toward greater risk of TIA in men (OR, 7.3 versus 6.5).

While the study lends unique insight due to the high proportion of men, it also comes with the limitation that the participants were veterans, and may therefore differ from the general population with respect to general health status and other characteristics, said Ms. Schwartz.
 

Another Piece of the Puzzle

The large number of men in the study is important, according to session moderator Laine Green, MD, who was asked for comment. “The biggest population that was studied with respect to cardiovascular risk was the Women’s Health Study, which was predominantly White nurses over time, and it is one of our biggest important pieces of information when it comes to cardiovascular risk, specifically looking at those with migraine who seem to have this doubling of their underlying stroke risk. Trying to get the same type of information from different populations is exquisitely helpful, because it’s long been thought that the risk for stroke and cardiovascular events seems to lie with females with aura. Knowing that there may be risk in other groups is important and part of the overall counseling that we do with patients,” said Dr. Green, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

The findings could hint at causal mechanisms, according to Dr. Seng. Preliminary analyses, not yet reported, suggest that age also plays a role in the relationship between migraine and cardiovascular risks. “I think that it’s important to [determine] to what extent migraine might back up the curve on the age-related timing of these events. Migraine peaks in the 40s, and that’s well before most of these cardiovascular events peak. We want to understand not just the cross-sectional relationships, which were large, but also the extent to which migraine may be having a differential impact on risk in different age bands,” said Dr. Seng.

Ms. Schwartz, Dr. Seng, and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Migraine may be associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, ischemic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), but also a reduction in risk of hemorrhagic stroke in men, according to results from a retrospective analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data. Migraine was also linked to greater risk of cardiovascular disease, and the researchers found similar risk among both genders, with the exceptions of a larger stroke risk among women and larger risk of TIA among men.

Gender Matters

The research complements other studies, such as an analysis drawn from the Women’s Health Study, according to Alexandra Schwartz, a doctoral student at Yeshiva University, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. That study found a 53% increased risk of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.31) among 17,531 female subjects between the ages of 25 and 42. Another, smaller study in 1,400 men drawn from the Physicians Health study found an increased risk of major cardiovascular events of 1.24 (P = .008). Previous studies have shown that around two-thirds of VHA patients with migraine are male. “Our population gives us this really unique opportunity to look at men with migraine,” Ms. Schwartz said in an interview.

The differential risk factors among men and women are tantalizing. “Gender likely matters in terms of how migraine and stroke are related, and a number of other cardiovascular diseases,” said Ms. Schwartz.

Migraine has long been considered a disease of women, but 6% of men experience the condition, making it important to understand how migraine might affect cardiovascular result in men. “We would expect that there could be different underlying mechanisms in this kind of relationship ... it is absolutely worth understanding the extent to which this disease might impact their risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Elizabeth Seng, PhD, said in an interview. She is a professor at Yeshiva University and a research associate at Albert Einstein School of Medicine.

The researchers examined data from 2,006,905 veterans between 2008 and 2021, including 681,784 migraineurs (492,234 men; 189,430 women) and 1,325,121 controls (983,154 men; 341,967 women) that were matched based on age within a 5-year band, gender, race, ethnicity, and VHA site of care.

Among individuals diagnosed with migraine, there was an increased risk of ischemic stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% CI, 2.6-2.7), TIA (OR, 7.3; 95% CI, 6.8-7.7), cardiovascular disease (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 3.5-3.6), acute myocardial infarction (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.8), heart failure (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4), and unstable angina (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.5-2.8). There was an association between migraine and a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.4-0.5), but only in men. When the findings were analyzed by gender, the findings were generally similar with the exception of a statistically significant, larger risk of ischemic stroke in women (OR, 3.0 versus 2.6), and a trend toward greater risk of TIA in men (OR, 7.3 versus 6.5).

While the study lends unique insight due to the high proportion of men, it also comes with the limitation that the participants were veterans, and may therefore differ from the general population with respect to general health status and other characteristics, said Ms. Schwartz.
 

Another Piece of the Puzzle

The large number of men in the study is important, according to session moderator Laine Green, MD, who was asked for comment. “The biggest population that was studied with respect to cardiovascular risk was the Women’s Health Study, which was predominantly White nurses over time, and it is one of our biggest important pieces of information when it comes to cardiovascular risk, specifically looking at those with migraine who seem to have this doubling of their underlying stroke risk. Trying to get the same type of information from different populations is exquisitely helpful, because it’s long been thought that the risk for stroke and cardiovascular events seems to lie with females with aura. Knowing that there may be risk in other groups is important and part of the overall counseling that we do with patients,” said Dr. Green, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

The findings could hint at causal mechanisms, according to Dr. Seng. Preliminary analyses, not yet reported, suggest that age also plays a role in the relationship between migraine and cardiovascular risks. “I think that it’s important to [determine] to what extent migraine might back up the curve on the age-related timing of these events. Migraine peaks in the 40s, and that’s well before most of these cardiovascular events peak. We want to understand not just the cross-sectional relationships, which were large, but also the extent to which migraine may be having a differential impact on risk in different age bands,” said Dr. Seng.

Ms. Schwartz, Dr. Seng, and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Migraine may be associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular disease, ischemic stroke, and transient ischemic attack (TIA), but also a reduction in risk of hemorrhagic stroke in men, according to results from a retrospective analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data. Migraine was also linked to greater risk of cardiovascular disease, and the researchers found similar risk among both genders, with the exceptions of a larger stroke risk among women and larger risk of TIA among men.

Gender Matters

The research complements other studies, such as an analysis drawn from the Women’s Health Study, according to Alexandra Schwartz, a doctoral student at Yeshiva University, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. That study found a 53% increased risk of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.31) among 17,531 female subjects between the ages of 25 and 42. Another, smaller study in 1,400 men drawn from the Physicians Health study found an increased risk of major cardiovascular events of 1.24 (P = .008). Previous studies have shown that around two-thirds of VHA patients with migraine are male. “Our population gives us this really unique opportunity to look at men with migraine,” Ms. Schwartz said in an interview.

The differential risk factors among men and women are tantalizing. “Gender likely matters in terms of how migraine and stroke are related, and a number of other cardiovascular diseases,” said Ms. Schwartz.

Migraine has long been considered a disease of women, but 6% of men experience the condition, making it important to understand how migraine might affect cardiovascular result in men. “We would expect that there could be different underlying mechanisms in this kind of relationship ... it is absolutely worth understanding the extent to which this disease might impact their risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Elizabeth Seng, PhD, said in an interview. She is a professor at Yeshiva University and a research associate at Albert Einstein School of Medicine.

The researchers examined data from 2,006,905 veterans between 2008 and 2021, including 681,784 migraineurs (492,234 men; 189,430 women) and 1,325,121 controls (983,154 men; 341,967 women) that were matched based on age within a 5-year band, gender, race, ethnicity, and VHA site of care.

Among individuals diagnosed with migraine, there was an increased risk of ischemic stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% CI, 2.6-2.7), TIA (OR, 7.3; 95% CI, 6.8-7.7), cardiovascular disease (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 3.5-3.6), acute myocardial infarction (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.8), heart failure (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4), and unstable angina (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.5-2.8). There was an association between migraine and a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.4-0.5), but only in men. When the findings were analyzed by gender, the findings were generally similar with the exception of a statistically significant, larger risk of ischemic stroke in women (OR, 3.0 versus 2.6), and a trend toward greater risk of TIA in men (OR, 7.3 versus 6.5).

While the study lends unique insight due to the high proportion of men, it also comes with the limitation that the participants were veterans, and may therefore differ from the general population with respect to general health status and other characteristics, said Ms. Schwartz.
 

Another Piece of the Puzzle

The large number of men in the study is important, according to session moderator Laine Green, MD, who was asked for comment. “The biggest population that was studied with respect to cardiovascular risk was the Women’s Health Study, which was predominantly White nurses over time, and it is one of our biggest important pieces of information when it comes to cardiovascular risk, specifically looking at those with migraine who seem to have this doubling of their underlying stroke risk. Trying to get the same type of information from different populations is exquisitely helpful, because it’s long been thought that the risk for stroke and cardiovascular events seems to lie with females with aura. Knowing that there may be risk in other groups is important and part of the overall counseling that we do with patients,” said Dr. Green, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

The findings could hint at causal mechanisms, according to Dr. Seng. Preliminary analyses, not yet reported, suggest that age also plays a role in the relationship between migraine and cardiovascular risks. “I think that it’s important to [determine] to what extent migraine might back up the curve on the age-related timing of these events. Migraine peaks in the 40s, and that’s well before most of these cardiovascular events peak. We want to understand not just the cross-sectional relationships, which were large, but also the extent to which migraine may be having a differential impact on risk in different age bands,” said Dr. Seng.

Ms. Schwartz, Dr. Seng, and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — A new analysis of patients with new daily persistent headache (NDPH) lends insight into the condition and provides some hints as to some of the more effective treatments, including some calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors.

“There’s just not a lot [of information] about these patients,” Mark Burish, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at UT Houston, said in an interview. He presented the results of the survey at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

There have been some retrospective analyses of patient data, but that has a lot of potential for bias. “It’s only the patients who can afford to be there, and who needed those treatments, and so we want to do more of a general survey,” said Dr. Burish.

The results weren’t particularly surprising, and tended to reaffirm what was known anecdotally, including symptoms similar to those of migraine, but it gave some insight into treatments. “Some of the CGRP inhibitors and the onabotulinum toxin seem to be some of the more effective treatments, according to our survey, so those are probably worth looking into for these patients if you can get them approved by insurance, and if you can get patients to accept the idea they might have to give themselves an injection of some sort,” said Dr. Burish.

Despite having some promise, there was variation among CGRP inhibitors. Eptinezumab, rimegepant, and atogepant were commonly reported as effective, but others, such as erenumab and galcanezumab, were less often reported. “None of them were incredibly effective. These were just the best things we have at this time,” said Dr. Burish.
 

Additional Information on a Rare, Hard-to-Treat Condition

Jason Sico, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I’m so appreciative that the team has looked at a new daily persistent headache. It’s a rare type of headache disorder. It’s also one that is notoriously difficult to treat and something that we that we really need to know more about. It is difficult to really get good, robust in-depth information on these patients, and the team did a really nice job with that,” said Dr. Sico, associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale School of Medicine and national director of the Headache Centers of Excellence Program within the Veterans Health Administration.

He noted that the researchers found that opioids were the most commonly used acute treatment. That’s not surprising, but “it would be interesting to see what was tried before someone had gotten to opioids,” he said.

The findings also gave some unexpected insight into the condition. “I really found it striking that an overwhelming majority of patients reported brain fog. Given the context that it is daily persistent headache, one could surmise that they have brain fog a lot of the time,” said Dr. Sico.
 

‘A Good Data Set’

The researchers analyzed data from 337 international patients who responded to a survey. They also randomly selected 34 patients for an interview, and 32 of those were deemed likely to have NDPH. “So we really spent some effort making sure this was a good data set,” said Dr. Burish. The participant population was 72% female, 83.7% White, and 70.7% were based in the United States, though other countries included Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. The mean age was 41.2 years. The peak ages of onset were between 11 and 40 years, though there were a few cases in the 0-5 age range and over 70. Possible triggers that occurred in the 3 months before onset included psychological stressors (34%), infection or inflammation (32%, COVID infection (5%), injury or surgery (8%), or a change in medications (4%). No clear trigger was identified by 22% of respondents.

The survey included information on associated features, and frequently reported issues included brain fog (approximate 75%), sound sensitivity (about 62%), light sensitivity (57%), nausea (39%), smell sensitivity (32%), visual disturbances (28%), vomiting (13%), and chills (9%).
 

Insights Into Treatment Efficacy

Dr. Burish showed a slide of responses to questions about acute treatments that respondents had tried at least once and viewed as ‘completely effective,’ ‘mostly effective,’ or ‘somewhat effective.’

“No medicine was completely effective, which I think a lot of people know from NDPH. It is notoriously difficult to treat. The things on the top of the list are mostly opioids. There’s one (non-opioid), the DHE (dihydroergotamine) injection. All the way on the other side, you have diphenhydramine. The NSAIDs and triptans are mostly in the middle. We did ask about some of the wearable devices, and we had extra questions about, are you using it appropriately? Those are kind of in the middle or towards the bottom [in frequency],” said Dr. Burish.

There was a similar question regarding effective preventive medications that had been tried for at least 2 months or 3 months in the cause of onabotulinum toxin or CGRP medications. “This one had a little bit more of a pattern to it: A lot of the CGRP medications are up toward the top. It’s not perfect. Erenumab and galcanezumab are closer to the bottom, but it was interesting that a lot of the CGRP medicines were toward the top. Onabotulinum toxin was also somewhat toward the top. We looked at a few different anti-inflammatories. Methylprednisolone is kind of toward the upper half at least, whereas prednisone and montelukast are at the absolute bottom. And the prednisone is a pretty good dose, 50 milligrams or higher. There are some people thinking that this is an inflammation or infectious etiology, (but) it wasn’t that all of the anti-inflammatories were necessarily toward the top of the list,” said Dr. Burish.

Dr. Burish has received funding from Lundbeck. Dr. Sico has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — A new analysis of patients with new daily persistent headache (NDPH) lends insight into the condition and provides some hints as to some of the more effective treatments, including some calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors.

“There’s just not a lot [of information] about these patients,” Mark Burish, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at UT Houston, said in an interview. He presented the results of the survey at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

There have been some retrospective analyses of patient data, but that has a lot of potential for bias. “It’s only the patients who can afford to be there, and who needed those treatments, and so we want to do more of a general survey,” said Dr. Burish.

The results weren’t particularly surprising, and tended to reaffirm what was known anecdotally, including symptoms similar to those of migraine, but it gave some insight into treatments. “Some of the CGRP inhibitors and the onabotulinum toxin seem to be some of the more effective treatments, according to our survey, so those are probably worth looking into for these patients if you can get them approved by insurance, and if you can get patients to accept the idea they might have to give themselves an injection of some sort,” said Dr. Burish.

Despite having some promise, there was variation among CGRP inhibitors. Eptinezumab, rimegepant, and atogepant were commonly reported as effective, but others, such as erenumab and galcanezumab, were less often reported. “None of them were incredibly effective. These were just the best things we have at this time,” said Dr. Burish.
 

Additional Information on a Rare, Hard-to-Treat Condition

Jason Sico, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I’m so appreciative that the team has looked at a new daily persistent headache. It’s a rare type of headache disorder. It’s also one that is notoriously difficult to treat and something that we that we really need to know more about. It is difficult to really get good, robust in-depth information on these patients, and the team did a really nice job with that,” said Dr. Sico, associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale School of Medicine and national director of the Headache Centers of Excellence Program within the Veterans Health Administration.

He noted that the researchers found that opioids were the most commonly used acute treatment. That’s not surprising, but “it would be interesting to see what was tried before someone had gotten to opioids,” he said.

The findings also gave some unexpected insight into the condition. “I really found it striking that an overwhelming majority of patients reported brain fog. Given the context that it is daily persistent headache, one could surmise that they have brain fog a lot of the time,” said Dr. Sico.
 

‘A Good Data Set’

The researchers analyzed data from 337 international patients who responded to a survey. They also randomly selected 34 patients for an interview, and 32 of those were deemed likely to have NDPH. “So we really spent some effort making sure this was a good data set,” said Dr. Burish. The participant population was 72% female, 83.7% White, and 70.7% were based in the United States, though other countries included Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. The mean age was 41.2 years. The peak ages of onset were between 11 and 40 years, though there were a few cases in the 0-5 age range and over 70. Possible triggers that occurred in the 3 months before onset included psychological stressors (34%), infection or inflammation (32%, COVID infection (5%), injury or surgery (8%), or a change in medications (4%). No clear trigger was identified by 22% of respondents.

The survey included information on associated features, and frequently reported issues included brain fog (approximate 75%), sound sensitivity (about 62%), light sensitivity (57%), nausea (39%), smell sensitivity (32%), visual disturbances (28%), vomiting (13%), and chills (9%).
 

Insights Into Treatment Efficacy

Dr. Burish showed a slide of responses to questions about acute treatments that respondents had tried at least once and viewed as ‘completely effective,’ ‘mostly effective,’ or ‘somewhat effective.’

“No medicine was completely effective, which I think a lot of people know from NDPH. It is notoriously difficult to treat. The things on the top of the list are mostly opioids. There’s one (non-opioid), the DHE (dihydroergotamine) injection. All the way on the other side, you have diphenhydramine. The NSAIDs and triptans are mostly in the middle. We did ask about some of the wearable devices, and we had extra questions about, are you using it appropriately? Those are kind of in the middle or towards the bottom [in frequency],” said Dr. Burish.

There was a similar question regarding effective preventive medications that had been tried for at least 2 months or 3 months in the cause of onabotulinum toxin or CGRP medications. “This one had a little bit more of a pattern to it: A lot of the CGRP medications are up toward the top. It’s not perfect. Erenumab and galcanezumab are closer to the bottom, but it was interesting that a lot of the CGRP medicines were toward the top. Onabotulinum toxin was also somewhat toward the top. We looked at a few different anti-inflammatories. Methylprednisolone is kind of toward the upper half at least, whereas prednisone and montelukast are at the absolute bottom. And the prednisone is a pretty good dose, 50 milligrams or higher. There are some people thinking that this is an inflammation or infectious etiology, (but) it wasn’t that all of the anti-inflammatories were necessarily toward the top of the list,” said Dr. Burish.

Dr. Burish has received funding from Lundbeck. Dr. Sico has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — A new analysis of patients with new daily persistent headache (NDPH) lends insight into the condition and provides some hints as to some of the more effective treatments, including some calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors.

“There’s just not a lot [of information] about these patients,” Mark Burish, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at UT Houston, said in an interview. He presented the results of the survey at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

There have been some retrospective analyses of patient data, but that has a lot of potential for bias. “It’s only the patients who can afford to be there, and who needed those treatments, and so we want to do more of a general survey,” said Dr. Burish.

The results weren’t particularly surprising, and tended to reaffirm what was known anecdotally, including symptoms similar to those of migraine, but it gave some insight into treatments. “Some of the CGRP inhibitors and the onabotulinum toxin seem to be some of the more effective treatments, according to our survey, so those are probably worth looking into for these patients if you can get them approved by insurance, and if you can get patients to accept the idea they might have to give themselves an injection of some sort,” said Dr. Burish.

Despite having some promise, there was variation among CGRP inhibitors. Eptinezumab, rimegepant, and atogepant were commonly reported as effective, but others, such as erenumab and galcanezumab, were less often reported. “None of them were incredibly effective. These were just the best things we have at this time,” said Dr. Burish.
 

Additional Information on a Rare, Hard-to-Treat Condition

Jason Sico, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I’m so appreciative that the team has looked at a new daily persistent headache. It’s a rare type of headache disorder. It’s also one that is notoriously difficult to treat and something that we that we really need to know more about. It is difficult to really get good, robust in-depth information on these patients, and the team did a really nice job with that,” said Dr. Sico, associate professor of neurology and internal medicine at Yale School of Medicine and national director of the Headache Centers of Excellence Program within the Veterans Health Administration.

He noted that the researchers found that opioids were the most commonly used acute treatment. That’s not surprising, but “it would be interesting to see what was tried before someone had gotten to opioids,” he said.

The findings also gave some unexpected insight into the condition. “I really found it striking that an overwhelming majority of patients reported brain fog. Given the context that it is daily persistent headache, one could surmise that they have brain fog a lot of the time,” said Dr. Sico.
 

‘A Good Data Set’

The researchers analyzed data from 337 international patients who responded to a survey. They also randomly selected 34 patients for an interview, and 32 of those were deemed likely to have NDPH. “So we really spent some effort making sure this was a good data set,” said Dr. Burish. The participant population was 72% female, 83.7% White, and 70.7% were based in the United States, though other countries included Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. The mean age was 41.2 years. The peak ages of onset were between 11 and 40 years, though there were a few cases in the 0-5 age range and over 70. Possible triggers that occurred in the 3 months before onset included psychological stressors (34%), infection or inflammation (32%, COVID infection (5%), injury or surgery (8%), or a change in medications (4%). No clear trigger was identified by 22% of respondents.

The survey included information on associated features, and frequently reported issues included brain fog (approximate 75%), sound sensitivity (about 62%), light sensitivity (57%), nausea (39%), smell sensitivity (32%), visual disturbances (28%), vomiting (13%), and chills (9%).
 

Insights Into Treatment Efficacy

Dr. Burish showed a slide of responses to questions about acute treatments that respondents had tried at least once and viewed as ‘completely effective,’ ‘mostly effective,’ or ‘somewhat effective.’

“No medicine was completely effective, which I think a lot of people know from NDPH. It is notoriously difficult to treat. The things on the top of the list are mostly opioids. There’s one (non-opioid), the DHE (dihydroergotamine) injection. All the way on the other side, you have diphenhydramine. The NSAIDs and triptans are mostly in the middle. We did ask about some of the wearable devices, and we had extra questions about, are you using it appropriately? Those are kind of in the middle or towards the bottom [in frequency],” said Dr. Burish.

There was a similar question regarding effective preventive medications that had been tried for at least 2 months or 3 months in the cause of onabotulinum toxin or CGRP medications. “This one had a little bit more of a pattern to it: A lot of the CGRP medications are up toward the top. It’s not perfect. Erenumab and galcanezumab are closer to the bottom, but it was interesting that a lot of the CGRP medicines were toward the top. Onabotulinum toxin was also somewhat toward the top. We looked at a few different anti-inflammatories. Methylprednisolone is kind of toward the upper half at least, whereas prednisone and montelukast are at the absolute bottom. And the prednisone is a pretty good dose, 50 milligrams or higher. There are some people thinking that this is an inflammation or infectious etiology, (but) it wasn’t that all of the anti-inflammatories were necessarily toward the top of the list,” said Dr. Burish.

Dr. Burish has received funding from Lundbeck. Dr. Sico has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Susceptibility to post-traumatic headache could be linked to mutations in ion channel and ion transporter genes, according to results from a preliminary study.

Post-traumatic headache is a common symptom of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

There is evidence that genetic mutations could play a role in both TBI development and response. In particular, the S213L mutation for familial hemiplegic migraine-1 (FHM1), found in the CACNA1A gene, can cause individuals carrying it to be highly sensitive to otherwise trivial head impacts, according to Lyn Griffiths, PhD.

The consequences can be post-traumatic headache, but also seizures, cerebral edema, coma, or worse. Another form of FHM is associated with mutations in ATP1A2.

“This stimulated our interest in looking at genes that relate to TBI with a particular focus on ion channel genes,” said Dr. Griffiths, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The researchers analyzed data from 117 participants who had at least one concussion with a post-traumatic headache, and recruited family members when possible. There were 15 participants who developed severe reactions to trivial head trauma, 13 who had been diagnosed with concussion and underwent imaging related to TBI-associated symptoms, 54 who had been recruited through local sporting groups campuses, and 35 recruited through a medical research foundation. Blood or saliva samples were used to perform whole exome sequencing.

The researchers looked for gene candidates within different tiers. Tier 1 included genes that had already been implicated in severe migraine. The second tier included 353 ion channel and iron transporter genes. Tier 3 comprised neurotransmission-related genes.

After sequencing, the researchers filtered genetic mutations to include only those that affected amino acid composition of the protein, were predicted by two or more in silico analysis tools to be damaging, and were identified in multiple, unrelated patients.

In tier 2, the greatest number of potential damaging variants were found in the SCN9A gene, which is involved in pain perception and processing. There were six variants found in eight cases. Of these eight individuals, three had suffered severe reactions to relatively minor head trauma.

In tier 3, the researchers identified mutations in eight neurotransmitter-related genes.

Through comparison with a general population control group, the researchers identified 43 different rare, amino acid–changing variants that occurred within 16 ion channel and ion channel transporter genes. These mutations were found in 53 individuals, at an approximately fivefold higher frequency than the control group (odds ratio, 5.6; P < .0001).

“We identified a number of rare genetic variants implicated in migraine — ion channel and other neurologically associated genes — in those suffering from post-traumatic headache,” said Dr. Griffiths. She also noted that the whole genomes they collected will allow for further analysis of other gene candidates in the future.

During the Q&A period, Dr. Griffiths was asked if the research group tracked the severity of the TBIs suffered by participants. She responded that they had not, and this was a limitation of the study.

Another questioner asked if parents should consider genetic testing for susceptibility mutations when considering whether to allow a child to participate in sports or activities with elevated risk of TBI. “I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing,” she said, though she conceded that the work is still immature. “It’s probably a bit early because we haven’t identified all the genes that are involved or all the specific mutations ... but I think down the track, that makes perfect sense. Why would you not do some sensible preventive screening to aid with things like maybe you wear more headgear or you consider what’s the appropriate sport for that person?”

Laine Green, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think the idea of potentially identifying people that have more genetic susceptibility to injuries is very intriguing, because post-traumatic headache and symptoms is always a difficult area to treat, potentially identifying those that with more genetic susceptibility might be helpful. It may also potentially allow us to target specific treatments, especially in this case, looking at different ion channels. There are medications that may work better at ion channel targets than other targets,” said Dr. Green.

He also endorsed the potential value of screening. “Speaking as a parent, I might like to know my child is at higher risk if they’re going to participate in contact sports or other high risk activities,” he said.

Dr. Griffiths and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Susceptibility to post-traumatic headache could be linked to mutations in ion channel and ion transporter genes, according to results from a preliminary study.

Post-traumatic headache is a common symptom of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

There is evidence that genetic mutations could play a role in both TBI development and response. In particular, the S213L mutation for familial hemiplegic migraine-1 (FHM1), found in the CACNA1A gene, can cause individuals carrying it to be highly sensitive to otherwise trivial head impacts, according to Lyn Griffiths, PhD.

The consequences can be post-traumatic headache, but also seizures, cerebral edema, coma, or worse. Another form of FHM is associated with mutations in ATP1A2.

“This stimulated our interest in looking at genes that relate to TBI with a particular focus on ion channel genes,” said Dr. Griffiths, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The researchers analyzed data from 117 participants who had at least one concussion with a post-traumatic headache, and recruited family members when possible. There were 15 participants who developed severe reactions to trivial head trauma, 13 who had been diagnosed with concussion and underwent imaging related to TBI-associated symptoms, 54 who had been recruited through local sporting groups campuses, and 35 recruited through a medical research foundation. Blood or saliva samples were used to perform whole exome sequencing.

The researchers looked for gene candidates within different tiers. Tier 1 included genes that had already been implicated in severe migraine. The second tier included 353 ion channel and iron transporter genes. Tier 3 comprised neurotransmission-related genes.

After sequencing, the researchers filtered genetic mutations to include only those that affected amino acid composition of the protein, were predicted by two or more in silico analysis tools to be damaging, and were identified in multiple, unrelated patients.

In tier 2, the greatest number of potential damaging variants were found in the SCN9A gene, which is involved in pain perception and processing. There were six variants found in eight cases. Of these eight individuals, three had suffered severe reactions to relatively minor head trauma.

In tier 3, the researchers identified mutations in eight neurotransmitter-related genes.

Through comparison with a general population control group, the researchers identified 43 different rare, amino acid–changing variants that occurred within 16 ion channel and ion channel transporter genes. These mutations were found in 53 individuals, at an approximately fivefold higher frequency than the control group (odds ratio, 5.6; P < .0001).

“We identified a number of rare genetic variants implicated in migraine — ion channel and other neurologically associated genes — in those suffering from post-traumatic headache,” said Dr. Griffiths. She also noted that the whole genomes they collected will allow for further analysis of other gene candidates in the future.

During the Q&A period, Dr. Griffiths was asked if the research group tracked the severity of the TBIs suffered by participants. She responded that they had not, and this was a limitation of the study.

Another questioner asked if parents should consider genetic testing for susceptibility mutations when considering whether to allow a child to participate in sports or activities with elevated risk of TBI. “I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing,” she said, though she conceded that the work is still immature. “It’s probably a bit early because we haven’t identified all the genes that are involved or all the specific mutations ... but I think down the track, that makes perfect sense. Why would you not do some sensible preventive screening to aid with things like maybe you wear more headgear or you consider what’s the appropriate sport for that person?”

Laine Green, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think the idea of potentially identifying people that have more genetic susceptibility to injuries is very intriguing, because post-traumatic headache and symptoms is always a difficult area to treat, potentially identifying those that with more genetic susceptibility might be helpful. It may also potentially allow us to target specific treatments, especially in this case, looking at different ion channels. There are medications that may work better at ion channel targets than other targets,” said Dr. Green.

He also endorsed the potential value of screening. “Speaking as a parent, I might like to know my child is at higher risk if they’re going to participate in contact sports or other high risk activities,” he said.

Dr. Griffiths and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Susceptibility to post-traumatic headache could be linked to mutations in ion channel and ion transporter genes, according to results from a preliminary study.

Post-traumatic headache is a common symptom of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

There is evidence that genetic mutations could play a role in both TBI development and response. In particular, the S213L mutation for familial hemiplegic migraine-1 (FHM1), found in the CACNA1A gene, can cause individuals carrying it to be highly sensitive to otherwise trivial head impacts, according to Lyn Griffiths, PhD.

The consequences can be post-traumatic headache, but also seizures, cerebral edema, coma, or worse. Another form of FHM is associated with mutations in ATP1A2.

“This stimulated our interest in looking at genes that relate to TBI with a particular focus on ion channel genes,” said Dr. Griffiths, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The researchers analyzed data from 117 participants who had at least one concussion with a post-traumatic headache, and recruited family members when possible. There were 15 participants who developed severe reactions to trivial head trauma, 13 who had been diagnosed with concussion and underwent imaging related to TBI-associated symptoms, 54 who had been recruited through local sporting groups campuses, and 35 recruited through a medical research foundation. Blood or saliva samples were used to perform whole exome sequencing.

The researchers looked for gene candidates within different tiers. Tier 1 included genes that had already been implicated in severe migraine. The second tier included 353 ion channel and iron transporter genes. Tier 3 comprised neurotransmission-related genes.

After sequencing, the researchers filtered genetic mutations to include only those that affected amino acid composition of the protein, were predicted by two or more in silico analysis tools to be damaging, and were identified in multiple, unrelated patients.

In tier 2, the greatest number of potential damaging variants were found in the SCN9A gene, which is involved in pain perception and processing. There were six variants found in eight cases. Of these eight individuals, three had suffered severe reactions to relatively minor head trauma.

In tier 3, the researchers identified mutations in eight neurotransmitter-related genes.

Through comparison with a general population control group, the researchers identified 43 different rare, amino acid–changing variants that occurred within 16 ion channel and ion channel transporter genes. These mutations were found in 53 individuals, at an approximately fivefold higher frequency than the control group (odds ratio, 5.6; P < .0001).

“We identified a number of rare genetic variants implicated in migraine — ion channel and other neurologically associated genes — in those suffering from post-traumatic headache,” said Dr. Griffiths. She also noted that the whole genomes they collected will allow for further analysis of other gene candidates in the future.

During the Q&A period, Dr. Griffiths was asked if the research group tracked the severity of the TBIs suffered by participants. She responded that they had not, and this was a limitation of the study.

Another questioner asked if parents should consider genetic testing for susceptibility mutations when considering whether to allow a child to participate in sports or activities with elevated risk of TBI. “I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing,” she said, though she conceded that the work is still immature. “It’s probably a bit early because we haven’t identified all the genes that are involved or all the specific mutations ... but I think down the track, that makes perfect sense. Why would you not do some sensible preventive screening to aid with things like maybe you wear more headgear or you consider what’s the appropriate sport for that person?”

Laine Green, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think the idea of potentially identifying people that have more genetic susceptibility to injuries is very intriguing, because post-traumatic headache and symptoms is always a difficult area to treat, potentially identifying those that with more genetic susceptibility might be helpful. It may also potentially allow us to target specific treatments, especially in this case, looking at different ion channels. There are medications that may work better at ion channel targets than other targets,” said Dr. Green.

He also endorsed the potential value of screening. “Speaking as a parent, I might like to know my child is at higher risk if they’re going to participate in contact sports or other high risk activities,” he said.

Dr. Griffiths and Dr. Green have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Cognitive impairment, or “brain fog,” is a well-known effect of active migraines, but evidence is mounting that it is also common during interictal periods.

In fact, these effects may appear in the prodromal phase and carry through the headache and into the post-headache period, according to Richard Lipton, MD, who spoke about cognition and migraine at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

He pointed out existing evidence that migraine patients have cognitive impairment relative to the general population even during the interictal period. Such studies suggest that migraine, especially with aura, could be a risk factor for later dementia.

One important limitation of studies that compare people with migraines with controls is that a range of factors could explain an association between lower cognitive function and migraines, including socioeconomic factors, education, severe headaches requiring specialty care, and comorbidities, among others. Acute and preventative treatments could also affect cognition.

However, longitudinal studies of cognitive function in individual patients have been sparse. Questions remain, like whether cognitive performance differs between the headache period and the interictal period, as well as similar questions about the premonitory and post-drome phases. “And then there’s a long-term question: Do people with migraine show more interictal or ictal decline in cognitive performance relative to migraine-free controls?” said Dr. Lipton, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York.

He showed evidence from a retrospective study by Lundbeck conducted at four sites that asked patients with chronic migraine about bothersome symptoms both before and after treatment. More than three-fourths (77.7%) rated “difficulty concentrating or thinking clearly” as a bothersome symptom.

Following treatment, 5.0% said their cognitive issues had completely improved, 32.0% that they were “very much” improved, 26.0% moderately improved, 23.0% slightly improved, and 14.0% not at all improved.

“I am not saying this is a rigorous study, but I am saying that it illustrates two points that are important for us today: One is that brain fog is very common in a subspecialty care sample of headache patients like the ones many of us treat, and it also suggests that there’s hope that treatment can improve cognitive impairment as migraine gets better,” said Dr. Lipton.

Cognition has received less attention than other migraine symptoms, and treatment can be a two-edged sword: “There’s some evidence that some treatments can reduce cognitive impairment, and obvious evidence that some treatments, topiramate and tricyclics, can induce cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Lipton.

Studies that compare cognition within the same patient at different time periods can get around some of the limitations of comparisons between populations, but face their own challenges. “Single shot” cognitive measures may not be reliably repeatable and differences seen on “good” versus “bad” days or proximity to recent headaches.

The solution, Dr. Lipton believes, is intensive repeated measures that avoid the practice effect, in which a participant improves at a test due to repetition.

He summarized a study that was presented later in the day at a poster session, which used smartphones or other devices to test 19 participants five times per day, over 5 days, in natural environments. Devices gathered both subjective and objective assessments of cognition, along with information on mood, stress, and status and fluctuations in pain, and have the potential to go further by measuring things like physical exertion, heart rate, pollution levels, and other variables.

“It clearly improves the reliability and the validity of cognitive assessment and makes it possible to link cognition to the stage of the headache cycle,” said Dr. Lipton.

The researchers found worse cognitive performance during the headache phase as compared with the interictal phase. “Objective cognitive performance measurably declines during the headache phase, and the next step is to fully control for acute medications that people may take during the headache phase,” said Dr. Lipton.

He expressed hope that improved measurements can improve outcomes, if it’s possible to identify therapies that don’t impact cognition. “We think it’s very likely that certain classes of acute and preventive medications may not cause cognitive impairment, and there is a strong hope that they may actually reduce the cognitive burden of disease and potentially even reduce cognitive decline. Those are areas that I’m very excited to explore in the future,” said Dr. Lipton.

The results emphasize the need to treat patients early, according to Nada Hindiyeh, MD, who attended the session and was asked for comment. “Generally, patients are going to come to you with episodic migraines. When migraines start to increase in frequency and severity, that means all of these other symptoms are going to come along with it and be increased in frequency and severity, so it’s important to recognize this early so you can get patients on the right treatments and preventives to really prevent these episodes from happening and prevent that cognitive decline,” said Dr. Hindiyeh, director of headache neurology at Metrodora Institute, West Valley City, Utah.

Dr. Lipton has financial relationships with Aeon, AbbVie/Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Lundbeck, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Axon, CoolTech, and Manistee. Dr. Hindiyeh has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Cognitive impairment, or “brain fog,” is a well-known effect of active migraines, but evidence is mounting that it is also common during interictal periods.

In fact, these effects may appear in the prodromal phase and carry through the headache and into the post-headache period, according to Richard Lipton, MD, who spoke about cognition and migraine at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

He pointed out existing evidence that migraine patients have cognitive impairment relative to the general population even during the interictal period. Such studies suggest that migraine, especially with aura, could be a risk factor for later dementia.

One important limitation of studies that compare people with migraines with controls is that a range of factors could explain an association between lower cognitive function and migraines, including socioeconomic factors, education, severe headaches requiring specialty care, and comorbidities, among others. Acute and preventative treatments could also affect cognition.

However, longitudinal studies of cognitive function in individual patients have been sparse. Questions remain, like whether cognitive performance differs between the headache period and the interictal period, as well as similar questions about the premonitory and post-drome phases. “And then there’s a long-term question: Do people with migraine show more interictal or ictal decline in cognitive performance relative to migraine-free controls?” said Dr. Lipton, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York.

He showed evidence from a retrospective study by Lundbeck conducted at four sites that asked patients with chronic migraine about bothersome symptoms both before and after treatment. More than three-fourths (77.7%) rated “difficulty concentrating or thinking clearly” as a bothersome symptom.

Following treatment, 5.0% said their cognitive issues had completely improved, 32.0% that they were “very much” improved, 26.0% moderately improved, 23.0% slightly improved, and 14.0% not at all improved.

“I am not saying this is a rigorous study, but I am saying that it illustrates two points that are important for us today: One is that brain fog is very common in a subspecialty care sample of headache patients like the ones many of us treat, and it also suggests that there’s hope that treatment can improve cognitive impairment as migraine gets better,” said Dr. Lipton.

Cognition has received less attention than other migraine symptoms, and treatment can be a two-edged sword: “There’s some evidence that some treatments can reduce cognitive impairment, and obvious evidence that some treatments, topiramate and tricyclics, can induce cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Lipton.

Studies that compare cognition within the same patient at different time periods can get around some of the limitations of comparisons between populations, but face their own challenges. “Single shot” cognitive measures may not be reliably repeatable and differences seen on “good” versus “bad” days or proximity to recent headaches.

The solution, Dr. Lipton believes, is intensive repeated measures that avoid the practice effect, in which a participant improves at a test due to repetition.

He summarized a study that was presented later in the day at a poster session, which used smartphones or other devices to test 19 participants five times per day, over 5 days, in natural environments. Devices gathered both subjective and objective assessments of cognition, along with information on mood, stress, and status and fluctuations in pain, and have the potential to go further by measuring things like physical exertion, heart rate, pollution levels, and other variables.

“It clearly improves the reliability and the validity of cognitive assessment and makes it possible to link cognition to the stage of the headache cycle,” said Dr. Lipton.

The researchers found worse cognitive performance during the headache phase as compared with the interictal phase. “Objective cognitive performance measurably declines during the headache phase, and the next step is to fully control for acute medications that people may take during the headache phase,” said Dr. Lipton.

He expressed hope that improved measurements can improve outcomes, if it’s possible to identify therapies that don’t impact cognition. “We think it’s very likely that certain classes of acute and preventive medications may not cause cognitive impairment, and there is a strong hope that they may actually reduce the cognitive burden of disease and potentially even reduce cognitive decline. Those are areas that I’m very excited to explore in the future,” said Dr. Lipton.

The results emphasize the need to treat patients early, according to Nada Hindiyeh, MD, who attended the session and was asked for comment. “Generally, patients are going to come to you with episodic migraines. When migraines start to increase in frequency and severity, that means all of these other symptoms are going to come along with it and be increased in frequency and severity, so it’s important to recognize this early so you can get patients on the right treatments and preventives to really prevent these episodes from happening and prevent that cognitive decline,” said Dr. Hindiyeh, director of headache neurology at Metrodora Institute, West Valley City, Utah.

Dr. Lipton has financial relationships with Aeon, AbbVie/Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Lundbeck, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Axon, CoolTech, and Manistee. Dr. Hindiyeh has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Cognitive impairment, or “brain fog,” is a well-known effect of active migraines, but evidence is mounting that it is also common during interictal periods.

In fact, these effects may appear in the prodromal phase and carry through the headache and into the post-headache period, according to Richard Lipton, MD, who spoke about cognition and migraine at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

He pointed out existing evidence that migraine patients have cognitive impairment relative to the general population even during the interictal period. Such studies suggest that migraine, especially with aura, could be a risk factor for later dementia.

One important limitation of studies that compare people with migraines with controls is that a range of factors could explain an association between lower cognitive function and migraines, including socioeconomic factors, education, severe headaches requiring specialty care, and comorbidities, among others. Acute and preventative treatments could also affect cognition.

However, longitudinal studies of cognitive function in individual patients have been sparse. Questions remain, like whether cognitive performance differs between the headache period and the interictal period, as well as similar questions about the premonitory and post-drome phases. “And then there’s a long-term question: Do people with migraine show more interictal or ictal decline in cognitive performance relative to migraine-free controls?” said Dr. Lipton, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York.

He showed evidence from a retrospective study by Lundbeck conducted at four sites that asked patients with chronic migraine about bothersome symptoms both before and after treatment. More than three-fourths (77.7%) rated “difficulty concentrating or thinking clearly” as a bothersome symptom.

Following treatment, 5.0% said their cognitive issues had completely improved, 32.0% that they were “very much” improved, 26.0% moderately improved, 23.0% slightly improved, and 14.0% not at all improved.

“I am not saying this is a rigorous study, but I am saying that it illustrates two points that are important for us today: One is that brain fog is very common in a subspecialty care sample of headache patients like the ones many of us treat, and it also suggests that there’s hope that treatment can improve cognitive impairment as migraine gets better,” said Dr. Lipton.

Cognition has received less attention than other migraine symptoms, and treatment can be a two-edged sword: “There’s some evidence that some treatments can reduce cognitive impairment, and obvious evidence that some treatments, topiramate and tricyclics, can induce cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Lipton.

Studies that compare cognition within the same patient at different time periods can get around some of the limitations of comparisons between populations, but face their own challenges. “Single shot” cognitive measures may not be reliably repeatable and differences seen on “good” versus “bad” days or proximity to recent headaches.

The solution, Dr. Lipton believes, is intensive repeated measures that avoid the practice effect, in which a participant improves at a test due to repetition.

He summarized a study that was presented later in the day at a poster session, which used smartphones or other devices to test 19 participants five times per day, over 5 days, in natural environments. Devices gathered both subjective and objective assessments of cognition, along with information on mood, stress, and status and fluctuations in pain, and have the potential to go further by measuring things like physical exertion, heart rate, pollution levels, and other variables.

“It clearly improves the reliability and the validity of cognitive assessment and makes it possible to link cognition to the stage of the headache cycle,” said Dr. Lipton.

The researchers found worse cognitive performance during the headache phase as compared with the interictal phase. “Objective cognitive performance measurably declines during the headache phase, and the next step is to fully control for acute medications that people may take during the headache phase,” said Dr. Lipton.

He expressed hope that improved measurements can improve outcomes, if it’s possible to identify therapies that don’t impact cognition. “We think it’s very likely that certain classes of acute and preventive medications may not cause cognitive impairment, and there is a strong hope that they may actually reduce the cognitive burden of disease and potentially even reduce cognitive decline. Those are areas that I’m very excited to explore in the future,” said Dr. Lipton.

The results emphasize the need to treat patients early, according to Nada Hindiyeh, MD, who attended the session and was asked for comment. “Generally, patients are going to come to you with episodic migraines. When migraines start to increase in frequency and severity, that means all of these other symptoms are going to come along with it and be increased in frequency and severity, so it’s important to recognize this early so you can get patients on the right treatments and preventives to really prevent these episodes from happening and prevent that cognitive decline,” said Dr. Hindiyeh, director of headache neurology at Metrodora Institute, West Valley City, Utah.

Dr. Lipton has financial relationships with Aeon, AbbVie/Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Lundbeck, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Axon, CoolTech, and Manistee. Dr. Hindiyeh has no relevant financial disclosures.