Migraine ICYMI

Key clinical point: Interictal plasma amylin levels are higher in patients with chronic migraine and may serve as a better diagnostic marker than calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP).

Major finding: Plasma amylin levels were higher in chronic migraine patients than in episodic migraine patients and healthy controls (both P less than. 0001). Diagnostic performance was better with plasma amylin than CGRP in differentiating chronic migraine from healthy controls in adults.

Study details: The data come from a prospective case-controlled study involving 191 patients with chronic migraine, 58 patients with episodic migraine, and 68 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Spanish Research Network on Cerebrovascular Diseases, Center for Applied Medical Research, University of Navarra, and Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Irimia P et al. Cephalalgia. 2020 Dec 3. doi: 10.1177/0333102420977106.

Key clinical point: Interictal plasma amylin levels are higher in patients with chronic migraine and may serve as a better diagnostic marker than calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP).

Major finding: Plasma amylin levels were higher in chronic migraine patients than in episodic migraine patients and healthy controls (both P less than. 0001). Diagnostic performance was better with plasma amylin than CGRP in differentiating chronic migraine from healthy controls in adults.

Study details: The data come from a prospective case-controlled study involving 191 patients with chronic migraine, 58 patients with episodic migraine, and 68 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Spanish Research Network on Cerebrovascular Diseases, Center for Applied Medical Research, University of Navarra, and Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Irimia P et al. Cephalalgia. 2020 Dec 3. doi: 10.1177/0333102420977106.

Key clinical point: Interictal plasma amylin levels are higher in patients with chronic migraine and may serve as a better diagnostic marker than calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP).

Major finding: Plasma amylin levels were higher in chronic migraine patients than in episodic migraine patients and healthy controls (both P less than. 0001). Diagnostic performance was better with plasma amylin than CGRP in differentiating chronic migraine from healthy controls in adults.

Study details: The data come from a prospective case-controlled study involving 191 patients with chronic migraine, 58 patients with episodic migraine, and 68 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Spanish Research Network on Cerebrovascular Diseases, Center for Applied Medical Research, University of Navarra, and Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Irimia P et al. Cephalalgia. 2020 Dec 3. doi: 10.1177/0333102420977106.

Key clinical point: Sex differences in recovery time were observed in pediatric patients with mild traumatic brain injury or concussion, with girls and women taking longer to recover than boys and men. Patients with comorbidities of emotional distress (i.e., anxiety or depression) and migraine recovered more slowly, independent of sex.

Major finding: Girls and women experienced slower recovery (persistent symptoms after injury: week 4, 81.6% vs. 71.2%; week 8, 58.9% vs. 44.3%; and week 12, 42.6% vs. 30.2%; P = .01) and were more likely to have preexisting anxiety (26.7% vs. 18.7%) vs. boys and men. Patients with a history of emotional distress (persistent symptoms after injury: week 4, 80.9% vs. 75.6%; week 8, 57.8% vs. 50.5%; and week 12, 48.0% vs. 33.3%; P = .009) and migraine (persistent symptoms after injury: week 4, 87.3% vs. 73.9%; week 8, 67.7% vs. 49.0%; and week 12, 55.7% vs. 33.2%; P = .001) recovered more slowly vs. those without.

Study details: A prospective cohort study of 600 pediatric patients (54% females, 72.5% adolescents) enrolled at multicenter concussion specialty clinics from the Four Corners Youth Consortium from December 2017 to July 2019.

Disclosures: The study was supported by funds from the UCLA Steve Tisch BrainSPORT Program, the Easton Clinic for Brain Health, the UCLA Brain Injury Research Center, Stan and Patti Silver, the Satterberg Foundation, and the Sports Institute at UW Medicine. The presenting author had no disclosures. Three coauthors reported various disclosures.

Source: Rosenbaum PE et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.21463.

Key clinical point: Sex differences in recovery time were observed in pediatric patients with mild traumatic brain injury or concussion, with girls and women taking longer to recover than boys and men. Patients with comorbidities of emotional distress (i.e., anxiety or depression) and migraine recovered more slowly, independent of sex.

Major finding: Girls and women experienced slower recovery (persistent symptoms after injury: week 4, 81.6% vs. 71.2%; week 8, 58.9% vs. 44.3%; and week 12, 42.6% vs. 30.2%; P = .01) and were more likely to have preexisting anxiety (26.7% vs. 18.7%) vs. boys and men. Patients with a history of emotional distress (persistent symptoms after injury: week 4, 80.9% vs. 75.6%; week 8, 57.8% vs. 50.5%; and week 12, 48.0% vs. 33.3%; P = .009) and migraine (persistent symptoms after injury: week 4, 87.3% vs. 73.9%; week 8, 67.7% vs. 49.0%; and week 12, 55.7% vs. 33.2%; P = .001) recovered more slowly vs. those without.

Study details: A prospective cohort study of 600 pediatric patients (54% females, 72.5% adolescents) enrolled at multicenter concussion specialty clinics from the Four Corners Youth Consortium from December 2017 to July 2019.

Disclosures: The study was supported by funds from the UCLA Steve Tisch BrainSPORT Program, the Easton Clinic for Brain Health, the UCLA Brain Injury Research Center, Stan and Patti Silver, the Satterberg Foundation, and the Sports Institute at UW Medicine. The presenting author had no disclosures. Three coauthors reported various disclosures.

Source: Rosenbaum PE et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.21463.

Key clinical point: Sex differences in recovery time were observed in pediatric patients with mild traumatic brain injury or concussion, with girls and women taking longer to recover than boys and men. Patients with comorbidities of emotional distress (i.e., anxiety or depression) and migraine recovered more slowly, independent of sex.

Major finding: Girls and women experienced slower recovery (persistent symptoms after injury: week 4, 81.6% vs. 71.2%; week 8, 58.9% vs. 44.3%; and week 12, 42.6% vs. 30.2%; P = .01) and were more likely to have preexisting anxiety (26.7% vs. 18.7%) vs. boys and men. Patients with a history of emotional distress (persistent symptoms after injury: week 4, 80.9% vs. 75.6%; week 8, 57.8% vs. 50.5%; and week 12, 48.0% vs. 33.3%; P = .009) and migraine (persistent symptoms after injury: week 4, 87.3% vs. 73.9%; week 8, 67.7% vs. 49.0%; and week 12, 55.7% vs. 33.2%; P = .001) recovered more slowly vs. those without.

Study details: A prospective cohort study of 600 pediatric patients (54% females, 72.5% adolescents) enrolled at multicenter concussion specialty clinics from the Four Corners Youth Consortium from December 2017 to July 2019.

Disclosures: The study was supported by funds from the UCLA Steve Tisch BrainSPORT Program, the Easton Clinic for Brain Health, the UCLA Brain Injury Research Center, Stan and Patti Silver, the Satterberg Foundation, and the Sports Institute at UW Medicine. The presenting author had no disclosures. Three coauthors reported various disclosures.

Source: Rosenbaum PE et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.21463.

Key clinical point: This meta-analysis suggests that ginger is safe and effective in treating migraine patients with pain outcomes assessed at 2 hours.

Major finding: Ginger treatment was associated with substantially improved pain-free at 2 hours (risk ratio [RR], 1.79; P = .04) and decreased pain scores at 2 hours (mean difference, −1.27; P less than .00001), but showed no notable influence on treatment response (RR, 2.04; P = .43). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was lower in the ginger group vs. control group. The total adverse events were similar between groups (RR, 0.80; P = .44).

Study details: A meta-analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials including 227 participants.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen L et al. Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.11.030.

Key clinical point: This meta-analysis suggests that ginger is safe and effective in treating migraine patients with pain outcomes assessed at 2 hours.

Major finding: Ginger treatment was associated with substantially improved pain-free at 2 hours (risk ratio [RR], 1.79; P = .04) and decreased pain scores at 2 hours (mean difference, −1.27; P less than .00001), but showed no notable influence on treatment response (RR, 2.04; P = .43). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was lower in the ginger group vs. control group. The total adverse events were similar between groups (RR, 0.80; P = .44).

Study details: A meta-analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials including 227 participants.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen L et al. Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.11.030.

Key clinical point: This meta-analysis suggests that ginger is safe and effective in treating migraine patients with pain outcomes assessed at 2 hours.

Major finding: Ginger treatment was associated with substantially improved pain-free at 2 hours (risk ratio [RR], 1.79; P = .04) and decreased pain scores at 2 hours (mean difference, −1.27; P less than .00001), but showed no notable influence on treatment response (RR, 2.04; P = .43). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was lower in the ginger group vs. control group. The total adverse events were similar between groups (RR, 0.80; P = .44).

Study details: A meta-analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials including 227 participants.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen L et al. Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.11.030.

Key clinical point: Along with its efficacy as a migraine preventive treatment, fremanezumab demonstrates the potential benefit for reversion from chronic migraine (CM) to episodic migraine (EM).

Major finding: The rates of reversion from CM to EM were higher in patients treated with fremanezumab vs. those treated with placebo, when reversion was defined either as an average of less than 15 headache days per month during the 3-month treatment period (quarterly: 50.5%; P = .108 and monthly: 53.7%; P = .012 vs. placebo: 44.5%) or, more stringently, as less than 15 headache days per month at months 1, 2, and 3 (quarterly: 31.2%; P = .008 and monthly: 33.7%; P = .001 vs. placebo: 22.4%).

Study details: The findings are based on a post hoc analysis of the HALO CM trial. Patients with CM (n=1,088) were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 treatment groups (fremanezumab quarterly, n=376; fremanezumab monthly, n=379; or placebo, n=375).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Petach Tikva, Israel. Some study investigators reported being an employee of Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., receiving honoraria from, and/or consulting for Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Source: Lipton RB et al. Headache. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1111/head.13997.

Key clinical point: Along with its efficacy as a migraine preventive treatment, fremanezumab demonstrates the potential benefit for reversion from chronic migraine (CM) to episodic migraine (EM).

Major finding: The rates of reversion from CM to EM were higher in patients treated with fremanezumab vs. those treated with placebo, when reversion was defined either as an average of less than 15 headache days per month during the 3-month treatment period (quarterly: 50.5%; P = .108 and monthly: 53.7%; P = .012 vs. placebo: 44.5%) or, more stringently, as less than 15 headache days per month at months 1, 2, and 3 (quarterly: 31.2%; P = .008 and monthly: 33.7%; P = .001 vs. placebo: 22.4%).

Study details: The findings are based on a post hoc analysis of the HALO CM trial. Patients with CM (n=1,088) were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 treatment groups (fremanezumab quarterly, n=376; fremanezumab monthly, n=379; or placebo, n=375).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Petach Tikva, Israel. Some study investigators reported being an employee of Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., receiving honoraria from, and/or consulting for Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Source: Lipton RB et al. Headache. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1111/head.13997.

Key clinical point: Along with its efficacy as a migraine preventive treatment, fremanezumab demonstrates the potential benefit for reversion from chronic migraine (CM) to episodic migraine (EM).

Major finding: The rates of reversion from CM to EM were higher in patients treated with fremanezumab vs. those treated with placebo, when reversion was defined either as an average of less than 15 headache days per month during the 3-month treatment period (quarterly: 50.5%; P = .108 and monthly: 53.7%; P = .012 vs. placebo: 44.5%) or, more stringently, as less than 15 headache days per month at months 1, 2, and 3 (quarterly: 31.2%; P = .008 and monthly: 33.7%; P = .001 vs. placebo: 22.4%).

Study details: The findings are based on a post hoc analysis of the HALO CM trial. Patients with CM (n=1,088) were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 treatment groups (fremanezumab quarterly, n=376; fremanezumab monthly, n=379; or placebo, n=375).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Petach Tikva, Israel. Some study investigators reported being an employee of Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., receiving honoraria from, and/or consulting for Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Source: Lipton RB et al. Headache. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1111/head.13997.

Most clinicians who treat migraine know the statistics associated with this debilitating condition and can recite them almost verbatim. Likewise, we all know the long journey a patient experiencing headache can take before finding relief.

The question is, what can we do about it?  It can sometimes feel easy to look at the statistics, accept them with little objection, and move on, but we must do the best we can for our patients in the face of the migraine challenge.

It’s a journey that I welcome you to take with me as we evaluate important migraine  trends, treatments, and controversies, and figure out how to leverage these developments to improve outcomes and help our patients improve and feel and function better.

There are upwards of 39 million migraine sufferers in the US who are on a journey of their own that is often perplexing, frustrating, and can feel fruitless. According to the Migraine Research Foundation, most migraine sufferers do not seek medical treatment. More than half of patients who experience migraine are never diagnosed. Moreover, only 4% receive care from headache and pain specialists. Perhaps most disheartening, an estimated 5 million migraine sufferers, who we believe can benefit from preventive treatment, are not receiving it.

The patient journey can be extremely discouraging and often maddening. Results from the American Migraine Study show that nearly four in every 10 migraine patients  suffer 3 years or more before being diagnosed. A cross-sectional study published in 2019 analyzed treatments, procedures, and follow-up approaches experienced by 456 migraine sufferers until their initial consult with a headache specialist. Patients reported an average headache frequency of approximately 16 days per month. More than half were found to have chronic migraine, and 3 in every 10 had migraine with aura. Despite these characteristics—which were apparently hiding in plain sight—it took patients in this study an average of about 17 years from pain onset to make the journey to an appointment with a headache specialist. That is hard to believe, let alone to understand. Along the way, many migraineurs—particularly those with chronic migraine—were subjected to unnecessary exams and treatments.

Results like these do not come cheaply for families, society, and the health care system. Migraine is estimated to cost more than $20 million per year in direct medical expenses and lost productivity in the US, according to the American Migraine Foundation. Others have estimated double that number. Sufferers, meanwhile, face the prospect of significant pain, stigma and ongoing disability. More than 8 in every 10participants in the American Migraine Study had at least some headache-related disability. More than half say their pain caused severe impairment, even requiring bed rest. 

I believe we can help our migraine patients along this journey—and we can make it less arduous for them. We have education, tools, and treatments to help them. Learn how by joining me here each month. We will address the practical relevance of topics such as acute and preventive care (including the new gepants and CGRP-targeted treatments), new and more effective treatments for medication overuse headache, new treatment devices, behavioral approaches to migraine, and our role in headache advocacy, including stigma avoidance. We will not shy away from controversial topics such as the changing definition of chronic migraine, monoclonal antibody safety , high and low cerebrospinal fluid pressure syndromes, and more. See you next month.

Most clinicians who treat migraine know the statistics associated with this debilitating condition and can recite them almost verbatim. Likewise, we all know the long journey a patient experiencing headache can take before finding relief.

The question is, what can we do about it?  It can sometimes feel easy to look at the statistics, accept them with little objection, and move on, but we must do the best we can for our patients in the face of the migraine challenge.

It’s a journey that I welcome you to take with me as we evaluate important migraine  trends, treatments, and controversies, and figure out how to leverage these developments to improve outcomes and help our patients improve and feel and function better.

There are upwards of 39 million migraine sufferers in the US who are on a journey of their own that is often perplexing, frustrating, and can feel fruitless. According to the Migraine Research Foundation, most migraine sufferers do not seek medical treatment. More than half of patients who experience migraine are never diagnosed. Moreover, only 4% receive care from headache and pain specialists. Perhaps most disheartening, an estimated 5 million migraine sufferers, who we believe can benefit from preventive treatment, are not receiving it.

The patient journey can be extremely discouraging and often maddening. Results from the American Migraine Study show that nearly four in every 10 migraine patients  suffer 3 years or more before being diagnosed. A cross-sectional study published in 2019 analyzed treatments, procedures, and follow-up approaches experienced by 456 migraine sufferers until their initial consult with a headache specialist. Patients reported an average headache frequency of approximately 16 days per month. More than half were found to have chronic migraine, and 3 in every 10 had migraine with aura. Despite these characteristics—which were apparently hiding in plain sight—it took patients in this study an average of about 17 years from pain onset to make the journey to an appointment with a headache specialist. That is hard to believe, let alone to understand. Along the way, many migraineurs—particularly those with chronic migraine—were subjected to unnecessary exams and treatments.

Results like these do not come cheaply for families, society, and the health care system. Migraine is estimated to cost more than $20 million per year in direct medical expenses and lost productivity in the US, according to the American Migraine Foundation. Others have estimated double that number. Sufferers, meanwhile, face the prospect of significant pain, stigma and ongoing disability. More than 8 in every 10participants in the American Migraine Study had at least some headache-related disability. More than half say their pain caused severe impairment, even requiring bed rest. 

I believe we can help our migraine patients along this journey—and we can make it less arduous for them. We have education, tools, and treatments to help them. Learn how by joining me here each month. We will address the practical relevance of topics such as acute and preventive care (including the new gepants and CGRP-targeted treatments), new and more effective treatments for medication overuse headache, new treatment devices, behavioral approaches to migraine, and our role in headache advocacy, including stigma avoidance. We will not shy away from controversial topics such as the changing definition of chronic migraine, monoclonal antibody safety , high and low cerebrospinal fluid pressure syndromes, and more. See you next month.

Most clinicians who treat migraine know the statistics associated with this debilitating condition and can recite them almost verbatim. Likewise, we all know the long journey a patient experiencing headache can take before finding relief.

The question is, what can we do about it?  It can sometimes feel easy to look at the statistics, accept them with little objection, and move on, but we must do the best we can for our patients in the face of the migraine challenge.

It’s a journey that I welcome you to take with me as we evaluate important migraine  trends, treatments, and controversies, and figure out how to leverage these developments to improve outcomes and help our patients improve and feel and function better.

There are upwards of 39 million migraine sufferers in the US who are on a journey of their own that is often perplexing, frustrating, and can feel fruitless. According to the Migraine Research Foundation, most migraine sufferers do not seek medical treatment. More than half of patients who experience migraine are never diagnosed. Moreover, only 4% receive care from headache and pain specialists. Perhaps most disheartening, an estimated 5 million migraine sufferers, who we believe can benefit from preventive treatment, are not receiving it.

The patient journey can be extremely discouraging and often maddening. Results from the American Migraine Study show that nearly four in every 10 migraine patients  suffer 3 years or more before being diagnosed. A cross-sectional study published in 2019 analyzed treatments, procedures, and follow-up approaches experienced by 456 migraine sufferers until their initial consult with a headache specialist. Patients reported an average headache frequency of approximately 16 days per month. More than half were found to have chronic migraine, and 3 in every 10 had migraine with aura. Despite these characteristics—which were apparently hiding in plain sight—it took patients in this study an average of about 17 years from pain onset to make the journey to an appointment with a headache specialist. That is hard to believe, let alone to understand. Along the way, many migraineurs—particularly those with chronic migraine—were subjected to unnecessary exams and treatments.

Results like these do not come cheaply for families, society, and the health care system. Migraine is estimated to cost more than $20 million per year in direct medical expenses and lost productivity in the US, according to the American Migraine Foundation. Others have estimated double that number. Sufferers, meanwhile, face the prospect of significant pain, stigma and ongoing disability. More than 8 in every 10participants in the American Migraine Study had at least some headache-related disability. More than half say their pain caused severe impairment, even requiring bed rest. 

I believe we can help our migraine patients along this journey—and we can make it less arduous for them. We have education, tools, and treatments to help them. Learn how by joining me here each month. We will address the practical relevance of topics such as acute and preventive care (including the new gepants and CGRP-targeted treatments), new and more effective treatments for medication overuse headache, new treatment devices, behavioral approaches to migraine, and our role in headache advocacy, including stigma avoidance. We will not shy away from controversial topics such as the changing definition of chronic migraine, monoclonal antibody safety , high and low cerebrospinal fluid pressure syndromes, and more. See you next month.

Patients will soon be able to read the notes that physicians make during an episode of care, as well as information about diagnostic testing and imaging results, tests for STDs, fetal ultrasounds, and cancer biopsies. This open access is raising concerns among physicians.

As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have the right to see their medical notes. Known as Open Notes, the policy will go into effect on April 5, 2021. The Department of Health & Human Services recently changed the original start date, which was to be Nov. 2, 2020.

The mandate has some physicians worrying about potential legal risks and possible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality. When asked to share their views on the new Open Notes mandate, many physicians expressed their concerns but also cited some of the positive effects that could come from this.
 

Potentially more legal woes for physicians?

A key concern raised by one physician commenter is that patients could misunderstand legitimate medical terminology or even put a physician in legal crosshairs. For example, a medical term such as “spontaneous abortion” could be misconstrued by patients. A physician might write notes with the idea that a patient is reading them and thus might alter those notes in a way that creates legal trouble.

“This layers another level of censorship and legal liability onto physicians, who in attempting to be [politically correct], may omit critical information or have to use euphemisms in order to avoid conflict,” one physician said.

She also questioned whether notes might now have to be run through legal counsel before being posted to avoid potential liability.

Another doctor questioned how physicians would be able to document patients suspected of faking injuries for pain medication, for example. Could such documentation lead to lawsuits for the doctor?

As one physician noted, some patients “are drug seekers. Some refuse to aid in their own care. Some are malingerers. Not documenting that is bad medicine.”

The possibility of violating doctor-patient confidentiality laws, particularly for teenagers, could be another negative effect of Open Notes, said one physician.

“Won’t this violate the statutes that teenagers have the right to confidential evaluations?” the commenter mused. “If charts are to be immediately available, then STDs and pregnancies they weren’t ready to talk about will now be suddenly known by their parents.”

One doctor has already faced this issue. “I already ran into this problem once,” he noted. “Now I warn those on their parents’ insurance before I start the visit. I have literally had a patient state, ‘well then we are done,’ and leave without being seen due to it.”

Another physician questioned the possibility of having to write notes differently than they do now, especially if the patients have lower reading comprehension abilities.

One physician who uses Open Notes said he receives patient requests for changes that have little to do with the actual diagnosis and relate to ancillary issues. He highlighted patients who “don’t want psych diagnosis in their chart or are concerned a diagnosis will raise their insurance premium, so they ask me to delete it.”
 

Will Open Notes erode patient communication?

One physician questioned whether it would lead to patients being less open and forthcoming about their medical concerns with doctors.

“The main problem I see is the patient not telling me the whole story, or worse, telling me the story, and then asking me not to document it (as many have done in the past) because they don’t want their spouse, family, etc. to read the notes and they have already given their permission for them to do so, for a variety of reasons,” he commented. “This includes topics of STDs, infidelity, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other symptoms the patient doesn’t want their family to read about.”
 

Some physicians envision positive developments

Many physicians are unconcerned by the new mandate. “I see some potential good in this, such as improving doctor-patient communication and more scrupulous charting,” one physician said.

A doctor working in the U.S. federal health care system noted that open access has been a part of that system for decades.

“Since health care providers work in this unveiled setting for their entire career, they usually know how to write appropriate clinical notes and what information needs to be included in them,” he wrote. “Now it’s time for the rest of the medical community to catch up to a reality that we have worked within for decades now.

“The world did not end, malpractice complaints did not increase, and physician/patient relationships were not damaged. Living in the information age, archaic practices like private notes were surely going to end at some point.”

One doctor who has been using Open Notes has had experiences in which the patient noted an error in the medical chart that needed correcting. “I have had one patient correct me on a timeline in the HPI which was helpful and I made the requested correction in that instance,” he said.

Another physician agreed. “I’ve had patients add or correct valuable information I’ve missed. Good probably outweighs the bad if we set limits on behaviors expressed by the personality disordered group. The majority of people don’t seem to care and still ask me ‘what would you do’ or ‘tell me what to do.’ It’s all about patient/physician trust.”

Another talked about how Open Notes should have little or no impact. “Here’s a novel concept – talking to our patients,” he commented. “There is nothing in every one of my chart notes that has not already been discussed with my patients and I dictate (speech to text) my findings and plan in front of them. So, if they are reviewing my office notes, it will only serve to reinforce what we have already discussed.”

“I don’t intend to change anything,” he added. “Chances are if they were to see a test result before I have a chance to discuss it with them, they will have already ‘Googled’ its meaning and we can have more meaningful interaction if they have a basic understanding of the test.”

“I understand that this is anxiety provoking, but in general I think it is appropriate for patients to have access to their notes,” said another physician. “If physicians write lousy notes that say they did things they didn’t do, that fail to actually state a diagnosis and a plan (and they often do), that is the doc’s problem, not the patient’s.”

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

Patients will soon be able to read the notes that physicians make during an episode of care, as well as information about diagnostic testing and imaging results, tests for STDs, fetal ultrasounds, and cancer biopsies. This open access is raising concerns among physicians.

As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have the right to see their medical notes. Known as Open Notes, the policy will go into effect on April 5, 2021. The Department of Health & Human Services recently changed the original start date, which was to be Nov. 2, 2020.

The mandate has some physicians worrying about potential legal risks and possible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality. When asked to share their views on the new Open Notes mandate, many physicians expressed their concerns but also cited some of the positive effects that could come from this.
 

Potentially more legal woes for physicians?

A key concern raised by one physician commenter is that patients could misunderstand legitimate medical terminology or even put a physician in legal crosshairs. For example, a medical term such as “spontaneous abortion” could be misconstrued by patients. A physician might write notes with the idea that a patient is reading them and thus might alter those notes in a way that creates legal trouble.

“This layers another level of censorship and legal liability onto physicians, who in attempting to be [politically correct], may omit critical information or have to use euphemisms in order to avoid conflict,” one physician said.

She also questioned whether notes might now have to be run through legal counsel before being posted to avoid potential liability.

Another doctor questioned how physicians would be able to document patients suspected of faking injuries for pain medication, for example. Could such documentation lead to lawsuits for the doctor?

As one physician noted, some patients “are drug seekers. Some refuse to aid in their own care. Some are malingerers. Not documenting that is bad medicine.”

The possibility of violating doctor-patient confidentiality laws, particularly for teenagers, could be another negative effect of Open Notes, said one physician.

“Won’t this violate the statutes that teenagers have the right to confidential evaluations?” the commenter mused. “If charts are to be immediately available, then STDs and pregnancies they weren’t ready to talk about will now be suddenly known by their parents.”

One doctor has already faced this issue. “I already ran into this problem once,” he noted. “Now I warn those on their parents’ insurance before I start the visit. I have literally had a patient state, ‘well then we are done,’ and leave without being seen due to it.”

Another physician questioned the possibility of having to write notes differently than they do now, especially if the patients have lower reading comprehension abilities.

One physician who uses Open Notes said he receives patient requests for changes that have little to do with the actual diagnosis and relate to ancillary issues. He highlighted patients who “don’t want psych diagnosis in their chart or are concerned a diagnosis will raise their insurance premium, so they ask me to delete it.”
 

Will Open Notes erode patient communication?

One physician questioned whether it would lead to patients being less open and forthcoming about their medical concerns with doctors.

“The main problem I see is the patient not telling me the whole story, or worse, telling me the story, and then asking me not to document it (as many have done in the past) because they don’t want their spouse, family, etc. to read the notes and they have already given their permission for them to do so, for a variety of reasons,” he commented. “This includes topics of STDs, infidelity, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other symptoms the patient doesn’t want their family to read about.”
 

Some physicians envision positive developments

Many physicians are unconcerned by the new mandate. “I see some potential good in this, such as improving doctor-patient communication and more scrupulous charting,” one physician said.

A doctor working in the U.S. federal health care system noted that open access has been a part of that system for decades.

“Since health care providers work in this unveiled setting for their entire career, they usually know how to write appropriate clinical notes and what information needs to be included in them,” he wrote. “Now it’s time for the rest of the medical community to catch up to a reality that we have worked within for decades now.

“The world did not end, malpractice complaints did not increase, and physician/patient relationships were not damaged. Living in the information age, archaic practices like private notes were surely going to end at some point.”

One doctor who has been using Open Notes has had experiences in which the patient noted an error in the medical chart that needed correcting. “I have had one patient correct me on a timeline in the HPI which was helpful and I made the requested correction in that instance,” he said.

Another physician agreed. “I’ve had patients add or correct valuable information I’ve missed. Good probably outweighs the bad if we set limits on behaviors expressed by the personality disordered group. The majority of people don’t seem to care and still ask me ‘what would you do’ or ‘tell me what to do.’ It’s all about patient/physician trust.”

Another talked about how Open Notes should have little or no impact. “Here’s a novel concept – talking to our patients,” he commented. “There is nothing in every one of my chart notes that has not already been discussed with my patients and I dictate (speech to text) my findings and plan in front of them. So, if they are reviewing my office notes, it will only serve to reinforce what we have already discussed.”

“I don’t intend to change anything,” he added. “Chances are if they were to see a test result before I have a chance to discuss it with them, they will have already ‘Googled’ its meaning and we can have more meaningful interaction if they have a basic understanding of the test.”

“I understand that this is anxiety provoking, but in general I think it is appropriate for patients to have access to their notes,” said another physician. “If physicians write lousy notes that say they did things they didn’t do, that fail to actually state a diagnosis and a plan (and they often do), that is the doc’s problem, not the patient’s.”

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

Patients will soon be able to read the notes that physicians make during an episode of care, as well as information about diagnostic testing and imaging results, tests for STDs, fetal ultrasounds, and cancer biopsies. This open access is raising concerns among physicians.

As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have the right to see their medical notes. Known as Open Notes, the policy will go into effect on April 5, 2021. The Department of Health & Human Services recently changed the original start date, which was to be Nov. 2, 2020.

The mandate has some physicians worrying about potential legal risks and possible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality. When asked to share their views on the new Open Notes mandate, many physicians expressed their concerns but also cited some of the positive effects that could come from this.
 

Potentially more legal woes for physicians?

A key concern raised by one physician commenter is that patients could misunderstand legitimate medical terminology or even put a physician in legal crosshairs. For example, a medical term such as “spontaneous abortion” could be misconstrued by patients. A physician might write notes with the idea that a patient is reading them and thus might alter those notes in a way that creates legal trouble.

“This layers another level of censorship and legal liability onto physicians, who in attempting to be [politically correct], may omit critical information or have to use euphemisms in order to avoid conflict,” one physician said.

She also questioned whether notes might now have to be run through legal counsel before being posted to avoid potential liability.

Another doctor questioned how physicians would be able to document patients suspected of faking injuries for pain medication, for example. Could such documentation lead to lawsuits for the doctor?

As one physician noted, some patients “are drug seekers. Some refuse to aid in their own care. Some are malingerers. Not documenting that is bad medicine.”

The possibility of violating doctor-patient confidentiality laws, particularly for teenagers, could be another negative effect of Open Notes, said one physician.

“Won’t this violate the statutes that teenagers have the right to confidential evaluations?” the commenter mused. “If charts are to be immediately available, then STDs and pregnancies they weren’t ready to talk about will now be suddenly known by their parents.”

One doctor has already faced this issue. “I already ran into this problem once,” he noted. “Now I warn those on their parents’ insurance before I start the visit. I have literally had a patient state, ‘well then we are done,’ and leave without being seen due to it.”

Another physician questioned the possibility of having to write notes differently than they do now, especially if the patients have lower reading comprehension abilities.

One physician who uses Open Notes said he receives patient requests for changes that have little to do with the actual diagnosis and relate to ancillary issues. He highlighted patients who “don’t want psych diagnosis in their chart or are concerned a diagnosis will raise their insurance premium, so they ask me to delete it.”
 

Will Open Notes erode patient communication?

One physician questioned whether it would lead to patients being less open and forthcoming about their medical concerns with doctors.

“The main problem I see is the patient not telling me the whole story, or worse, telling me the story, and then asking me not to document it (as many have done in the past) because they don’t want their spouse, family, etc. to read the notes and they have already given their permission for them to do so, for a variety of reasons,” he commented. “This includes topics of STDs, infidelity, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other symptoms the patient doesn’t want their family to read about.”
 

Some physicians envision positive developments

Many physicians are unconcerned by the new mandate. “I see some potential good in this, such as improving doctor-patient communication and more scrupulous charting,” one physician said.

A doctor working in the U.S. federal health care system noted that open access has been a part of that system for decades.

“Since health care providers work in this unveiled setting for their entire career, they usually know how to write appropriate clinical notes and what information needs to be included in them,” he wrote. “Now it’s time for the rest of the medical community to catch up to a reality that we have worked within for decades now.

“The world did not end, malpractice complaints did not increase, and physician/patient relationships were not damaged. Living in the information age, archaic practices like private notes were surely going to end at some point.”

One doctor who has been using Open Notes has had experiences in which the patient noted an error in the medical chart that needed correcting. “I have had one patient correct me on a timeline in the HPI which was helpful and I made the requested correction in that instance,” he said.

Another physician agreed. “I’ve had patients add or correct valuable information I’ve missed. Good probably outweighs the bad if we set limits on behaviors expressed by the personality disordered group. The majority of people don’t seem to care and still ask me ‘what would you do’ or ‘tell me what to do.’ It’s all about patient/physician trust.”

Another talked about how Open Notes should have little or no impact. “Here’s a novel concept – talking to our patients,” he commented. “There is nothing in every one of my chart notes that has not already been discussed with my patients and I dictate (speech to text) my findings and plan in front of them. So, if they are reviewing my office notes, it will only serve to reinforce what we have already discussed.”

“I don’t intend to change anything,” he added. “Chances are if they were to see a test result before I have a chance to discuss it with them, they will have already ‘Googled’ its meaning and we can have more meaningful interaction if they have a basic understanding of the test.”

“I understand that this is anxiety provoking, but in general I think it is appropriate for patients to have access to their notes,” said another physician. “If physicians write lousy notes that say they did things they didn’t do, that fail to actually state a diagnosis and a plan (and they often do), that is the doc’s problem, not the patient’s.”

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

Key clinical point: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) did not improve migraine frequency more than headache education as both groups had similar decreases; however, mindfulness meditation may help treat the total burden of migraine.

Major finding: Decrease in headache frequency did not differ between the 2 groups (MBSR, −2.0 vs headache education, −2.4; P = .52). The MBSR vs. headache education group had significantly greater improvements at 36 weeks in disability (P less than .001), quality of life (P =.01), self-efficacy (P = .04), pain catastrophizing (P less than .001), depression scores (P =.008), decrease in pain intensity (P =.004), and decrease in pain unpleasantness (P =.005).

Study details: In this double-blinded, randomized clinical trial, 89 adults with a history of migraine were assigned to receive training in MBSR/yoga (n=45) or health education instruction on headaches, pathophysiology, triggers, stress, and treatment approaches (n=44).

Disclosures: This study was funded by an American Pain Society Grant from the Sharon S. Keller Chronic Pain Research Program and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. RE Wells and F Zeidan reported grants from the National Institutes of Health. TT Houle reported receiving personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and StatReviewer. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wells RE et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Dec 14. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7090.

Key clinical point: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) did not improve migraine frequency more than headache education as both groups had similar decreases; however, mindfulness meditation may help treat the total burden of migraine.

Major finding: Decrease in headache frequency did not differ between the 2 groups (MBSR, −2.0 vs headache education, −2.4; P = .52). The MBSR vs. headache education group had significantly greater improvements at 36 weeks in disability (P less than .001), quality of life (P =.01), self-efficacy (P = .04), pain catastrophizing (P less than .001), depression scores (P =.008), decrease in pain intensity (P =.004), and decrease in pain unpleasantness (P =.005).

Study details: In this double-blinded, randomized clinical trial, 89 adults with a history of migraine were assigned to receive training in MBSR/yoga (n=45) or health education instruction on headaches, pathophysiology, triggers, stress, and treatment approaches (n=44).

Disclosures: This study was funded by an American Pain Society Grant from the Sharon S. Keller Chronic Pain Research Program and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. RE Wells and F Zeidan reported grants from the National Institutes of Health. TT Houle reported receiving personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and StatReviewer. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wells RE et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Dec 14. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7090.

Key clinical point: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) did not improve migraine frequency more than headache education as both groups had similar decreases; however, mindfulness meditation may help treat the total burden of migraine.

Major finding: Decrease in headache frequency did not differ between the 2 groups (MBSR, −2.0 vs headache education, −2.4; P = .52). The MBSR vs. headache education group had significantly greater improvements at 36 weeks in disability (P less than .001), quality of life (P =.01), self-efficacy (P = .04), pain catastrophizing (P less than .001), depression scores (P =.008), decrease in pain intensity (P =.004), and decrease in pain unpleasantness (P =.005).

Study details: In this double-blinded, randomized clinical trial, 89 adults with a history of migraine were assigned to receive training in MBSR/yoga (n=45) or health education instruction on headaches, pathophysiology, triggers, stress, and treatment approaches (n=44).

Disclosures: This study was funded by an American Pain Society Grant from the Sharon S. Keller Chronic Pain Research Program and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. RE Wells and F Zeidan reported grants from the National Institutes of Health. TT Houle reported receiving personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and StatReviewer. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wells RE et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Dec 14. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7090.

Key clinical point: Delivery by cesarean section is not associated with migraine later in life. However, cesarean section is associated with a modestly reduced risk of non-migrainous headache.

Major finding: Delivery by cesarean section was not associated with later development of migraine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.93; P = .63). A negative association was seen between cesarean section and non-migrainous headache (aOR, 0.77; P = .04).

Study details: The findings are based on a retrospective register-linked HUNT population cohort study of 11,194 participants (age, 19-41 years; migraine group, n=1,855 and non-migrainous headache group, n=3,358).

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the University of Oslo, Akershus University Hospital, and Oslo University Hospital. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kristoffersen ES et al. BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040685.

Key clinical point: Delivery by cesarean section is not associated with migraine later in life. However, cesarean section is associated with a modestly reduced risk of non-migrainous headache.

Major finding: Delivery by cesarean section was not associated with later development of migraine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.93; P = .63). A negative association was seen between cesarean section and non-migrainous headache (aOR, 0.77; P = .04).

Study details: The findings are based on a retrospective register-linked HUNT population cohort study of 11,194 participants (age, 19-41 years; migraine group, n=1,855 and non-migrainous headache group, n=3,358).

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the University of Oslo, Akershus University Hospital, and Oslo University Hospital. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kristoffersen ES et al. BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040685.

Key clinical point: Delivery by cesarean section is not associated with migraine later in life. However, cesarean section is associated with a modestly reduced risk of non-migrainous headache.

Major finding: Delivery by cesarean section was not associated with later development of migraine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.93; P = .63). A negative association was seen between cesarean section and non-migrainous headache (aOR, 0.77; P = .04).

Study details: The findings are based on a retrospective register-linked HUNT population cohort study of 11,194 participants (age, 19-41 years; migraine group, n=1,855 and non-migrainous headache group, n=3,358).

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the University of Oslo, Akershus University Hospital, and Oslo University Hospital. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kristoffersen ES et al. BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040685.

Key clinical point: In adults with episodic migraine, intravenous eptinezumab administered every 12 weeks for up to 4 doses provides early and sustained migraine preventive efficacy and is well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile.

Major finding: The reduction in mean monthly migraine days was maintained with eptinezumab throughout the study period (100 mg: −3.9, −4.5, −4.7, and −4.5 days; 300 mg: −4.3, −4.8, −5.1, and −5.3 days; and placebo: −3.2, −3.8, −4.0, and −4.0 days during weeks 1-12, 13-24, 25-36, and 37-48, respectively). The percentage of patients with a reduction of 50% or greater and 75% or greater in migraine for each 12-week interval was consistently higher in the eptinezumab group vs. placebo group. Adverse events were similar across dosing periods.

Study details: Results of phase 3 PROMISE-1 through 1 year of treatment (up to 4 doses). In PROMISE-1, 888 patients with episodic migraine were randomly assigned in a ratio of 1:1:1:1 to receive eptinezumab 30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The presenting author has been a consultant and/or scientific advisor for Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel Neuropharma, and Theranica, and has received research support from Alder/Lundbeck, Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Charleston Labs, Eli Lilly, Electrocore, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Satsuma, Theranica, and Vorso.

Source: Smith TR et al. Clin Ther. 2020 Nov 27. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.11.007.

Key clinical point: In adults with episodic migraine, intravenous eptinezumab administered every 12 weeks for up to 4 doses provides early and sustained migraine preventive efficacy and is well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile.

Major finding: The reduction in mean monthly migraine days was maintained with eptinezumab throughout the study period (100 mg: −3.9, −4.5, −4.7, and −4.5 days; 300 mg: −4.3, −4.8, −5.1, and −5.3 days; and placebo: −3.2, −3.8, −4.0, and −4.0 days during weeks 1-12, 13-24, 25-36, and 37-48, respectively). The percentage of patients with a reduction of 50% or greater and 75% or greater in migraine for each 12-week interval was consistently higher in the eptinezumab group vs. placebo group. Adverse events were similar across dosing periods.

Study details: Results of phase 3 PROMISE-1 through 1 year of treatment (up to 4 doses). In PROMISE-1, 888 patients with episodic migraine were randomly assigned in a ratio of 1:1:1:1 to receive eptinezumab 30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The presenting author has been a consultant and/or scientific advisor for Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel Neuropharma, and Theranica, and has received research support from Alder/Lundbeck, Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Charleston Labs, Eli Lilly, Electrocore, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Satsuma, Theranica, and Vorso.

Source: Smith TR et al. Clin Ther. 2020 Nov 27. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.11.007.

Key clinical point: In adults with episodic migraine, intravenous eptinezumab administered every 12 weeks for up to 4 doses provides early and sustained migraine preventive efficacy and is well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile.

Major finding: The reduction in mean monthly migraine days was maintained with eptinezumab throughout the study period (100 mg: −3.9, −4.5, −4.7, and −4.5 days; 300 mg: −4.3, −4.8, −5.1, and −5.3 days; and placebo: −3.2, −3.8, −4.0, and −4.0 days during weeks 1-12, 13-24, 25-36, and 37-48, respectively). The percentage of patients with a reduction of 50% or greater and 75% or greater in migraine for each 12-week interval was consistently higher in the eptinezumab group vs. placebo group. Adverse events were similar across dosing periods.

Study details: Results of phase 3 PROMISE-1 through 1 year of treatment (up to 4 doses). In PROMISE-1, 888 patients with episodic migraine were randomly assigned in a ratio of 1:1:1:1 to receive eptinezumab 30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo every 12 weeks.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The presenting author has been a consultant and/or scientific advisor for Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel Neuropharma, and Theranica, and has received research support from Alder/Lundbeck, Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Charleston Labs, Eli Lilly, Electrocore, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Satsuma, Theranica, and Vorso.

Source: Smith TR et al. Clin Ther. 2020 Nov 27. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.11.007.

Key clinical point: Rimegepant was effective and had favourable safety and tolerability profiles in the preventive treatment of migraine.

Major finding: Rimegepant was superior to placebo in terms of change in the mean number of migraine days per month during weeks 9-12 (−4.3 days vs. −3.5 days; least squares mean difference, −0.8 days; P = .0099). Adverse events were reported by 133 of the patients who received rimegepant and 133 participants in the placebo group.

Study details: A multicentre, phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 695 participants randomly assigned to receive oral rimegepant 75 mg (n = 348) or matching placebo (n=347) every other day for 12 weeks. The safety analysis included 741 participants, who received at least one dose of study medication.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. Some study investigators reported owning stock in, being an employee of, receiving support/grant from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Source: Croop R et al. Lancet. 2020 Dec 15. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32544-7.

Key clinical point: Rimegepant was effective and had favourable safety and tolerability profiles in the preventive treatment of migraine.

Major finding: Rimegepant was superior to placebo in terms of change in the mean number of migraine days per month during weeks 9-12 (−4.3 days vs. −3.5 days; least squares mean difference, −0.8 days; P = .0099). Adverse events were reported by 133 of the patients who received rimegepant and 133 participants in the placebo group.

Study details: A multicentre, phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 695 participants randomly assigned to receive oral rimegepant 75 mg (n = 348) or matching placebo (n=347) every other day for 12 weeks. The safety analysis included 741 participants, who received at least one dose of study medication.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. Some study investigators reported owning stock in, being an employee of, receiving support/grant from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Source: Croop R et al. Lancet. 2020 Dec 15. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32544-7.

Key clinical point: Rimegepant was effective and had favourable safety and tolerability profiles in the preventive treatment of migraine.

Major finding: Rimegepant was superior to placebo in terms of change in the mean number of migraine days per month during weeks 9-12 (−4.3 days vs. −3.5 days; least squares mean difference, −0.8 days; P = .0099). Adverse events were reported by 133 of the patients who received rimegepant and 133 participants in the placebo group.

Study details: A multicentre, phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 695 participants randomly assigned to receive oral rimegepant 75 mg (n = 348) or matching placebo (n=347) every other day for 12 weeks. The safety analysis included 741 participants, who received at least one dose of study medication.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. Some study investigators reported owning stock in, being an employee of, receiving support/grant from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Source: Croop R et al. Lancet. 2020 Dec 15. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32544-7.