Key clinical point: Migraine, migraine with aura (MA), and migraine without aura (MO) were not associated with a higher risk for atrial fibrillation (AF), with migraine and its subtypes serving as a protective factor for AF in individuals age ≥ 55 years with migraine.

Major finding: No significant association was found between migraine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.18), MA (aHR 1.00; 95% CI 0.59-1.70), or MO (aHR 0.50; 95% CI 0.23-1.06) and the risk for AF. However, among patients age ≥ 55 years, the risk for AF was significantly lower in those with migraine (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.73), MA (aHR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.87), or MO (aHR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.78) than in those without headache.

Study details: This prospective, population-based 9-year follow-up study included 39,340 individuals (age ≥ 20 years) without AF who answered the headache questionnaire during the Trøndelag Health Study; of these, 1524 (3.8%) developed AF.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding from any sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Giri S, Tronvik E, Dalen H, et al. Migraine and risk of atrial fibrillation: A 9-year follow-up based on the Trøndelag Health Study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (May 29). doi: 10.1177/03331024241254517 Source

Key clinical point: Migraine, migraine with aura (MA), and migraine without aura (MO) were not associated with a higher risk for atrial fibrillation (AF), with migraine and its subtypes serving as a protective factor for AF in individuals age ≥ 55 years with migraine.

Major finding: No significant association was found between migraine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.18), MA (aHR 1.00; 95% CI 0.59-1.70), or MO (aHR 0.50; 95% CI 0.23-1.06) and the risk for AF. However, among patients age ≥ 55 years, the risk for AF was significantly lower in those with migraine (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.73), MA (aHR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.87), or MO (aHR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.78) than in those without headache.

Study details: This prospective, population-based 9-year follow-up study included 39,340 individuals (age ≥ 20 years) without AF who answered the headache questionnaire during the Trøndelag Health Study; of these, 1524 (3.8%) developed AF.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding from any sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Giri S, Tronvik E, Dalen H, et al. Migraine and risk of atrial fibrillation: A 9-year follow-up based on the Trøndelag Health Study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (May 29). doi: 10.1177/03331024241254517 Source

Key clinical point: Migraine, migraine with aura (MA), and migraine without aura (MO) were not associated with a higher risk for atrial fibrillation (AF), with migraine and its subtypes serving as a protective factor for AF in individuals age ≥ 55 years with migraine.

Major finding: No significant association was found between migraine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.18), MA (aHR 1.00; 95% CI 0.59-1.70), or MO (aHR 0.50; 95% CI 0.23-1.06) and the risk for AF. However, among patients age ≥ 55 years, the risk for AF was significantly lower in those with migraine (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.73), MA (aHR 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.87), or MO (aHR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.78) than in those without headache.

Study details: This prospective, population-based 9-year follow-up study included 39,340 individuals (age ≥ 20 years) without AF who answered the headache questionnaire during the Trøndelag Health Study; of these, 1524 (3.8%) developed AF.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding from any sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Giri S, Tronvik E, Dalen H, et al. Migraine and risk of atrial fibrillation: A 9-year follow-up based on the Trøndelag Health Study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (May 29). doi: 10.1177/03331024241254517 Source

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were well tolerated and effective in treating high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine, with factors such as unilateral pain, fewer migraine days, and lower disability associated with good and excellent responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Major finding: At 6 months, 56.5% and 26.7% patients receiving anti-CGRP mAb showed good and excellent responses (≥50% vs ≥75% reduction in monthly headache days), respectively. The presence of unilateral pain, fewer monthly migraine days, and a low Migraine Disability Assessment Score were independent predictors of good (area under the curve [AUC] 0.648; 95% CI 0.616-0.680) and excellent (AUC 0.691; 95% CI 0.651-0.731) responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Study details: This prospective multicenter real-world study included 4963 patients with high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine who received anti-CGRP mAb treatment with a 6-month follow-up.

Disclosures: This study did not receive specific funding from any sources. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, travel grants, or honoraria from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Caronna E, Gallardo VJ, Egeo G, et al, for the EUREkA study group. Redefining migraine prevention: Early treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies enhances response in the real world. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2024 (May 22). doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-333295 Source

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were well tolerated and effective in treating high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine, with factors such as unilateral pain, fewer migraine days, and lower disability associated with good and excellent responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Major finding: At 6 months, 56.5% and 26.7% patients receiving anti-CGRP mAb showed good and excellent responses (≥50% vs ≥75% reduction in monthly headache days), respectively. The presence of unilateral pain, fewer monthly migraine days, and a low Migraine Disability Assessment Score were independent predictors of good (area under the curve [AUC] 0.648; 95% CI 0.616-0.680) and excellent (AUC 0.691; 95% CI 0.651-0.731) responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Study details: This prospective multicenter real-world study included 4963 patients with high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine who received anti-CGRP mAb treatment with a 6-month follow-up.

Disclosures: This study did not receive specific funding from any sources. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, travel grants, or honoraria from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Caronna E, Gallardo VJ, Egeo G, et al, for the EUREkA study group. Redefining migraine prevention: Early treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies enhances response in the real world. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2024 (May 22). doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-333295 Source

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were well tolerated and effective in treating high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine, with factors such as unilateral pain, fewer migraine days, and lower disability associated with good and excellent responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Major finding: At 6 months, 56.5% and 26.7% patients receiving anti-CGRP mAb showed good and excellent responses (≥50% vs ≥75% reduction in monthly headache days), respectively. The presence of unilateral pain, fewer monthly migraine days, and a low Migraine Disability Assessment Score were independent predictors of good (area under the curve [AUC] 0.648; 95% CI 0.616-0.680) and excellent (AUC 0.691; 95% CI 0.651-0.731) responses to anti-CGRP mAb treatment.

Study details: This prospective multicenter real-world study included 4963 patients with high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine who received anti-CGRP mAb treatment with a 6-month follow-up.

Disclosures: This study did not receive specific funding from any sources. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, travel grants, or honoraria from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Caronna E, Gallardo VJ, Egeo G, et al, for the EUREkA study group. Redefining migraine prevention: Early treatment with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies enhances response in the real world. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2024 (May 22). doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-333295 Source

Key clinical point: A high proportion of patients with episodic migraine (EM) who achieved an initial response to atogepant showed a sustained response with continued treatment.

Major finding: In the ADVANCE trial, over 70% of participants who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first month sustained their response over 12 weeks. Similarly, in the long-term safety (LTS) trial, 84.7% of those who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first 12 weeks sustained their response through weeks 24-48.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the ADVANCE trial (n = 659) and open-label LTS trial (n = 521) that included patients with EM who were randomly assigned to receive atogepant or placebo once daily for 12 weeks and atogepant or standard care once daily for 52 weeks, respectively.

Disclosures: The study was funded by AbbVie. Some authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in AbbVie or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lipton RB, Nahas SJ, Pozo-Rosich P, et al. Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: Post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:83 (May 21). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01783-6 Source

Key clinical point: A high proportion of patients with episodic migraine (EM) who achieved an initial response to atogepant showed a sustained response with continued treatment.

Major finding: In the ADVANCE trial, over 70% of participants who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first month sustained their response over 12 weeks. Similarly, in the long-term safety (LTS) trial, 84.7% of those who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first 12 weeks sustained their response through weeks 24-48.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the ADVANCE trial (n = 659) and open-label LTS trial (n = 521) that included patients with EM who were randomly assigned to receive atogepant or placebo once daily for 12 weeks and atogepant or standard care once daily for 52 weeks, respectively.

Disclosures: The study was funded by AbbVie. Some authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in AbbVie or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lipton RB, Nahas SJ, Pozo-Rosich P, et al. Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: Post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:83 (May 21). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01783-6 Source

Key clinical point: A high proportion of patients with episodic migraine (EM) who achieved an initial response to atogepant showed a sustained response with continued treatment.

Major finding: In the ADVANCE trial, over 70% of participants who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first month sustained their response over 12 weeks. Similarly, in the long-term safety (LTS) trial, 84.7% of those who achieved an initial ≥50% response with atogepant during the first 12 weeks sustained their response through weeks 24-48.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the ADVANCE trial (n = 659) and open-label LTS trial (n = 521) that included patients with EM who were randomly assigned to receive atogepant or placebo once daily for 12 weeks and atogepant or standard care once daily for 52 weeks, respectively.

Disclosures: The study was funded by AbbVie. Some authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in AbbVie or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lipton RB, Nahas SJ, Pozo-Rosich P, et al. Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: Post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:83 (May 21). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01783-6 Source

Key clinical point: Long-term treatment with oral rimegepant, taken as needed (PRN) or every other day (EOD) plus PRN on nonscheduled days, reduced the need for analgesics or antiemetics in adults with migraine.

Major finding: The proportion of participants who stopped using analgesics or antiemetics after the pre-treatment observation period increased during weeks 1-4 (36.9%), 5-8 (52.6%), and 9-12 (56.5%) following rimegepant treatment in both PRN and PRN plus EOD cohorts.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of an open-label study included 1800 adults with migraine who received rimegepant PRN (n = 1514) or EOD plus PRN (n = 286) for 3 months according to the frequency of attacks, and of whom 80.1% used analgesics or antiemetics during the 30-day pre-treatment observation period.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Biohaven (acquired by Pfizer in October 2022). Terence Fullerton and Glenn Pixton declared being full-time employees of and holding stocks or options in Pfizer, and Glenn Pixton also declared holding stocks in Abbvie.

Source: Fullerton T, Pixton G. Long-term use of rimegepant 75 mg for the acute treatment of migraine is associated with a reduction in the utilization of select analgesics and antiemetics. J Pain Res. 2024;17:1751-1760 (May 2). doi: 10.2147/JPR.S456006 Source

Key clinical point: Long-term treatment with oral rimegepant, taken as needed (PRN) or every other day (EOD) plus PRN on nonscheduled days, reduced the need for analgesics or antiemetics in adults with migraine.

Major finding: The proportion of participants who stopped using analgesics or antiemetics after the pre-treatment observation period increased during weeks 1-4 (36.9%), 5-8 (52.6%), and 9-12 (56.5%) following rimegepant treatment in both PRN and PRN plus EOD cohorts.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of an open-label study included 1800 adults with migraine who received rimegepant PRN (n = 1514) or EOD plus PRN (n = 286) for 3 months according to the frequency of attacks, and of whom 80.1% used analgesics or antiemetics during the 30-day pre-treatment observation period.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Biohaven (acquired by Pfizer in October 2022). Terence Fullerton and Glenn Pixton declared being full-time employees of and holding stocks or options in Pfizer, and Glenn Pixton also declared holding stocks in Abbvie.

Source: Fullerton T, Pixton G. Long-term use of rimegepant 75 mg for the acute treatment of migraine is associated with a reduction in the utilization of select analgesics and antiemetics. J Pain Res. 2024;17:1751-1760 (May 2). doi: 10.2147/JPR.S456006 Source

Key clinical point: Long-term treatment with oral rimegepant, taken as needed (PRN) or every other day (EOD) plus PRN on nonscheduled days, reduced the need for analgesics or antiemetics in adults with migraine.

Major finding: The proportion of participants who stopped using analgesics or antiemetics after the pre-treatment observation period increased during weeks 1-4 (36.9%), 5-8 (52.6%), and 9-12 (56.5%) following rimegepant treatment in both PRN and PRN plus EOD cohorts.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of an open-label study included 1800 adults with migraine who received rimegepant PRN (n = 1514) or EOD plus PRN (n = 286) for 3 months according to the frequency of attacks, and of whom 80.1% used analgesics or antiemetics during the 30-day pre-treatment observation period.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Biohaven (acquired by Pfizer in October 2022). Terence Fullerton and Glenn Pixton declared being full-time employees of and holding stocks or options in Pfizer, and Glenn Pixton also declared holding stocks in Abbvie.

Source: Fullerton T, Pixton G. Long-term use of rimegepant 75 mg for the acute treatment of migraine is associated with a reduction in the utilization of select analgesics and antiemetics. J Pain Res. 2024;17:1751-1760 (May 2). doi: 10.2147/JPR.S456006 Source

Key clinical point: Adherence to an ideal healthy lifestyle and improvement in cardiovascular health (CVH) scores were associated with a significantly lower risk for new-onset migraine.

Major finding: Compared with participants in the poor category of healthy lifestyle index, those in the ideal (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.81; P < .001) or intermediate (aHR 0.91; P = .035) category had a significantly reduced risk for new-onset migraine. Similarly, participants with high CVH scores had a significantly lower risk for new-onset migraine than those with low CVH scores (aHR 0.73; P = .011).

Study details: This study evaluated the association between healthy lifestyle scores, CVH scores, and migraine in 332,895 participants without migraine (age 37-73 years) from the UK Biobank.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Interdisciplinary Innovative Talents Foundation of Renmin Hospital at Wuhan University, China, Research on Degree and Graduate Education Teaching Reform at Wuhan University, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lei Y, Zhang L, Shan Z, et al. Poor healthy lifestyle and life's essential 8 are associated with higher risk of new-onset migraine: A prospective cohort study. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:82 (May 17). doi: s10194-024-01785-4 Source

Key clinical point: Adherence to an ideal healthy lifestyle and improvement in cardiovascular health (CVH) scores were associated with a significantly lower risk for new-onset migraine.

Major finding: Compared with participants in the poor category of healthy lifestyle index, those in the ideal (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.81; P < .001) or intermediate (aHR 0.91; P = .035) category had a significantly reduced risk for new-onset migraine. Similarly, participants with high CVH scores had a significantly lower risk for new-onset migraine than those with low CVH scores (aHR 0.73; P = .011).

Study details: This study evaluated the association between healthy lifestyle scores, CVH scores, and migraine in 332,895 participants without migraine (age 37-73 years) from the UK Biobank.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Interdisciplinary Innovative Talents Foundation of Renmin Hospital at Wuhan University, China, Research on Degree and Graduate Education Teaching Reform at Wuhan University, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lei Y, Zhang L, Shan Z, et al. Poor healthy lifestyle and life's essential 8 are associated with higher risk of new-onset migraine: A prospective cohort study. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:82 (May 17). doi: s10194-024-01785-4 Source

Key clinical point: Adherence to an ideal healthy lifestyle and improvement in cardiovascular health (CVH) scores were associated with a significantly lower risk for new-onset migraine.

Major finding: Compared with participants in the poor category of healthy lifestyle index, those in the ideal (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.81; P < .001) or intermediate (aHR 0.91; P = .035) category had a significantly reduced risk for new-onset migraine. Similarly, participants with high CVH scores had a significantly lower risk for new-onset migraine than those with low CVH scores (aHR 0.73; P = .011).

Study details: This study evaluated the association between healthy lifestyle scores, CVH scores, and migraine in 332,895 participants without migraine (age 37-73 years) from the UK Biobank.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Interdisciplinary Innovative Talents Foundation of Renmin Hospital at Wuhan University, China, Research on Degree and Graduate Education Teaching Reform at Wuhan University, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lei Y, Zhang L, Shan Z, et al. Poor healthy lifestyle and life's essential 8 are associated with higher risk of new-onset migraine: A prospective cohort study. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:82 (May 17). doi: s10194-024-01785-4 Source

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab demonstrated favorable efficacy and tolerability in patients with episodic or chronic migraine resistant to conventional preventive treatments, but its efficacy was compromised in those resistant to calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb).

Major finding: After 3 months of eptinezumab treatment, patients with migraine experienced a reduction in monthly headache days (MHD; −4 days), monthly migraine days (−3 days), and acute medication days (−2 days; P < .001 for all). The 30% responder rates decreased with increase in the number of prior CGRP mAb therapies (none 78.6%; one 45.0%; two 32.1%; three 23.5%; P = .010). Overall, 10.4% of patients reported mild side effects.

Study details: This retrospective real-world analysis included 79 patients with episodic or chronic migraine, of whom 14 had never received anti-CGRP mAb and 65 received anti-CGRP mAb without sufficient effectiveness and with intolerability.

Disclosures: Open access for this study was funded by Projekt DEAL. Some authors declared receiving honoraria, personal fees, travel fees, scientific support, or financial support from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Scheffler A, Wenzel P, Bendig M, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of eptinezumab in treating patients with migraine resistant to conventional preventive medications and CGRP (receptor) antibodies: A multicentre retrospective real-world analysis from Germany. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:79 (May 16). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01788-1 Source

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab demonstrated favorable efficacy and tolerability in patients with episodic or chronic migraine resistant to conventional preventive treatments, but its efficacy was compromised in those resistant to calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb).

Major finding: After 3 months of eptinezumab treatment, patients with migraine experienced a reduction in monthly headache days (MHD; −4 days), monthly migraine days (−3 days), and acute medication days (−2 days; P < .001 for all). The 30% responder rates decreased with increase in the number of prior CGRP mAb therapies (none 78.6%; one 45.0%; two 32.1%; three 23.5%; P = .010). Overall, 10.4% of patients reported mild side effects.

Study details: This retrospective real-world analysis included 79 patients with episodic or chronic migraine, of whom 14 had never received anti-CGRP mAb and 65 received anti-CGRP mAb without sufficient effectiveness and with intolerability.

Disclosures: Open access for this study was funded by Projekt DEAL. Some authors declared receiving honoraria, personal fees, travel fees, scientific support, or financial support from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Scheffler A, Wenzel P, Bendig M, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of eptinezumab in treating patients with migraine resistant to conventional preventive medications and CGRP (receptor) antibodies: A multicentre retrospective real-world analysis from Germany. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:79 (May 16). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01788-1 Source

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab demonstrated favorable efficacy and tolerability in patients with episodic or chronic migraine resistant to conventional preventive treatments, but its efficacy was compromised in those resistant to calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb).

Major finding: After 3 months of eptinezumab treatment, patients with migraine experienced a reduction in monthly headache days (MHD; −4 days), monthly migraine days (−3 days), and acute medication days (−2 days; P < .001 for all). The 30% responder rates decreased with increase in the number of prior CGRP mAb therapies (none 78.6%; one 45.0%; two 32.1%; three 23.5%; P = .010). Overall, 10.4% of patients reported mild side effects.

Study details: This retrospective real-world analysis included 79 patients with episodic or chronic migraine, of whom 14 had never received anti-CGRP mAb and 65 received anti-CGRP mAb without sufficient effectiveness and with intolerability.

Disclosures: Open access for this study was funded by Projekt DEAL. Some authors declared receiving honoraria, personal fees, travel fees, scientific support, or financial support from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Scheffler A, Wenzel P, Bendig M, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of eptinezumab in treating patients with migraine resistant to conventional preventive medications and CGRP (receptor) antibodies: A multicentre retrospective real-world analysis from Germany. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:79 (May 16). doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01788-1 Source

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.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Should we now recommend continuous glucose monitoring to all our patients, even those without diabetes? Most of us would instinctively say “no” to this question, but we are seeing opinions from doctors recommending it, and in recent years, scientific literature has focused on the subject. 

Today, anyone can get an arm patch that continuously measures interstitial glucose, which is closely related to blood sugar. The information can be read on a dedicated reader or on a mobile phone by scanning the patch or, with some models, without even doing anything.

There is a consensus for prescribing continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who are treated with at least three insulin injections. Not only is the use of continuous glucose monitoring much more comfortable than self-monitoring with finger sticks, but continuous monitoring also helps reduce glycosylated hemoglobin while decreasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Recently, another indication has begun to be reimbursed in France: Type 2 diabetes under mono-insulin injection when the diabetes is not well controlled.

But alongside these situations, there are two questions that are worth considering.
 

Untreated Type 2 Diabetes 

First, is continuous glucose monitoring desirable for all patients with diabetes, even those not treated with insulin and even when blood sugar levels are well managed? Intuitively, one might think that it can’t hurt and that continuous monitoring of blood sugar can only improve things. We have some evidence supporting this idea, but the level of proof is quite weak. It is not clear that continuous monitoring can improve patients’ awareness of the impact of dietary choices or physical activity on blood sugar. Obviously, one can imagine that continuously monitoring glucose will encourage a shift toward more beneficial behaviors. But honestly, today, we do not have proof that wearing a continuous glucose monitor can improve behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes who are treated with noninsulin antidiabetic medications.

Furthermore, a significant study has shown that while the effectiveness is more evident in patients treated with insulin, strong evidence suggests that continuous glucose monitoring could also reduce glycosylated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. A close examination of the results suggests that the benefits generally are less than those observed in insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

When we look at the scientific literature, two factors seem particularly important to consider if choosing to prescribe a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. The first is the method used, because the results can vary depending on the method. It appears that only self-monitoring that allows the patient to follow glucose in real time is effective, unlike blind monitoring that allows only a retrospective analysis of blood sugar levels. In the latter case, the patient wears the sensor, and after a week, 10 days, or 15 days, the results are analyzed, possibly with a health care provider. It seems that this is not very effective in improving glycosylated hemoglobin and dietary and physical activity behavior.

The second essential factor to consider is the need for an education program for the use of these sensors to be helpful. If sensors are used but nothing else is done, it does not seem logical. Seeing blood sugar levels without being able to understand them and act accordingly seems of little use. Scientific literature seems to confirm this idea. 
 

Patients Without Diabetes

Now there is another question. We have discussed patients with type 2 diabetes without insulin. It’s trendy to talk about the potential benefits of continuous glucose monitors in patients without diabetes. The idea is emerging that these monitors could be used to refine the diagnosis of diabetes or to better predict the onset of diabetes in the subsequent years.

Others claim that continuous glucose monitors are an effective way to induce a change in dietary and physical activity behaviors in patients with prediabetes. One can, for example, tell a patient, “You are at risk of developing diabetes, so by monitoring your glucose, you will change your behavior.” Honestly, the scientific data we have today do not support these ideas, and I sincerely believe that it is not advisable today to recommend, as some would like, the mass use of monitors, whether in patients with overweight or obesity, or in patients with prediabetes. This goes for suggestions for using the monitor for 7-10 days per year, in the form of a session to try to reduce the risk for diabetes by motivating patients to change their behavior. We have no evidence at all that this can work. And in my opinion, with this kind of discourse, we ultimately risk, as usual, encouraging patients who are already “fans” of self-checks and self-monitoring to get health data, even if they do not know how to interpret it. Maybe even the doctor they ask for interpretation will not be trained to interpret the results of these monitors.

Spreading the idea that monitors are useful for preventing diabetes has a side effect: It hinders progress on the essential issue. Today, one of the problems in diabetes and prediabetes is that screening is not done often enough, and 20% of patients with diabetes are still unaware of their diagnosis. The management of early diabetes or prediabetes, in my opinion, is not optimal in routine care today. So, I think that adding the idea that using monitors could be beneficial dilutes the main information.

Having said that, I sometimes offer continuous glucose monitoring to some of my patients on a case-by-case basis. I believe that with proper support and an educational program, it can be beneficial for certain patients.
 

In Practice

In summary, I am totally opposed to the normalization of the use of monitors. I think it is our role as health care professionals to warn the public that even if it is accessible — anyone can buy a reader, a sensor — it is not necessarily beneficial, and it may even distract us from what is essential. But as a specialist, I think that using a monitor within a genuine care plan seems reasonable. Ultimately, it’s just personalized medicine.

Dr. Hansel is an endocrinologist-diabetologist and nutritionist, Department of Diabetology-Endocrinology-Nutrition, Hôpital Bichat, and a university lecturer and hospital practitioner, Université Paris-Diderot, France. He discloses ties with Iriade, Sanofi-Aventis, and Amgen.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should we now recommend continuous glucose monitoring to all our patients, even those without diabetes? Most of us would instinctively say “no” to this question, but we are seeing opinions from doctors recommending it, and in recent years, scientific literature has focused on the subject. 

Today, anyone can get an arm patch that continuously measures interstitial glucose, which is closely related to blood sugar. The information can be read on a dedicated reader or on a mobile phone by scanning the patch or, with some models, without even doing anything.

There is a consensus for prescribing continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who are treated with at least three insulin injections. Not only is the use of continuous glucose monitoring much more comfortable than self-monitoring with finger sticks, but continuous monitoring also helps reduce glycosylated hemoglobin while decreasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Recently, another indication has begun to be reimbursed in France: Type 2 diabetes under mono-insulin injection when the diabetes is not well controlled.

But alongside these situations, there are two questions that are worth considering.
 

Untreated Type 2 Diabetes 

First, is continuous glucose monitoring desirable for all patients with diabetes, even those not treated with insulin and even when blood sugar levels are well managed? Intuitively, one might think that it can’t hurt and that continuous monitoring of blood sugar can only improve things. We have some evidence supporting this idea, but the level of proof is quite weak. It is not clear that continuous monitoring can improve patients’ awareness of the impact of dietary choices or physical activity on blood sugar. Obviously, one can imagine that continuously monitoring glucose will encourage a shift toward more beneficial behaviors. But honestly, today, we do not have proof that wearing a continuous glucose monitor can improve behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes who are treated with noninsulin antidiabetic medications.

Furthermore, a significant study has shown that while the effectiveness is more evident in patients treated with insulin, strong evidence suggests that continuous glucose monitoring could also reduce glycosylated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. A close examination of the results suggests that the benefits generally are less than those observed in insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

When we look at the scientific literature, two factors seem particularly important to consider if choosing to prescribe a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. The first is the method used, because the results can vary depending on the method. It appears that only self-monitoring that allows the patient to follow glucose in real time is effective, unlike blind monitoring that allows only a retrospective analysis of blood sugar levels. In the latter case, the patient wears the sensor, and after a week, 10 days, or 15 days, the results are analyzed, possibly with a health care provider. It seems that this is not very effective in improving glycosylated hemoglobin and dietary and physical activity behavior.

The second essential factor to consider is the need for an education program for the use of these sensors to be helpful. If sensors are used but nothing else is done, it does not seem logical. Seeing blood sugar levels without being able to understand them and act accordingly seems of little use. Scientific literature seems to confirm this idea. 
 

Patients Without Diabetes

Now there is another question. We have discussed patients with type 2 diabetes without insulin. It’s trendy to talk about the potential benefits of continuous glucose monitors in patients without diabetes. The idea is emerging that these monitors could be used to refine the diagnosis of diabetes or to better predict the onset of diabetes in the subsequent years.

Others claim that continuous glucose monitors are an effective way to induce a change in dietary and physical activity behaviors in patients with prediabetes. One can, for example, tell a patient, “You are at risk of developing diabetes, so by monitoring your glucose, you will change your behavior.” Honestly, the scientific data we have today do not support these ideas, and I sincerely believe that it is not advisable today to recommend, as some would like, the mass use of monitors, whether in patients with overweight or obesity, or in patients with prediabetes. This goes for suggestions for using the monitor for 7-10 days per year, in the form of a session to try to reduce the risk for diabetes by motivating patients to change their behavior. We have no evidence at all that this can work. And in my opinion, with this kind of discourse, we ultimately risk, as usual, encouraging patients who are already “fans” of self-checks and self-monitoring to get health data, even if they do not know how to interpret it. Maybe even the doctor they ask for interpretation will not be trained to interpret the results of these monitors.

Spreading the idea that monitors are useful for preventing diabetes has a side effect: It hinders progress on the essential issue. Today, one of the problems in diabetes and prediabetes is that screening is not done often enough, and 20% of patients with diabetes are still unaware of their diagnosis. The management of early diabetes or prediabetes, in my opinion, is not optimal in routine care today. So, I think that adding the idea that using monitors could be beneficial dilutes the main information.

Having said that, I sometimes offer continuous glucose monitoring to some of my patients on a case-by-case basis. I believe that with proper support and an educational program, it can be beneficial for certain patients.
 

In Practice

In summary, I am totally opposed to the normalization of the use of monitors. I think it is our role as health care professionals to warn the public that even if it is accessible — anyone can buy a reader, a sensor — it is not necessarily beneficial, and it may even distract us from what is essential. But as a specialist, I think that using a monitor within a genuine care plan seems reasonable. Ultimately, it’s just personalized medicine.

Dr. Hansel is an endocrinologist-diabetologist and nutritionist, Department of Diabetology-Endocrinology-Nutrition, Hôpital Bichat, and a university lecturer and hospital practitioner, Université Paris-Diderot, France. He discloses ties with Iriade, Sanofi-Aventis, and Amgen.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should we now recommend continuous glucose monitoring to all our patients, even those without diabetes? Most of us would instinctively say “no” to this question, but we are seeing opinions from doctors recommending it, and in recent years, scientific literature has focused on the subject. 

Today, anyone can get an arm patch that continuously measures interstitial glucose, which is closely related to blood sugar. The information can be read on a dedicated reader or on a mobile phone by scanning the patch or, with some models, without even doing anything.

There is a consensus for prescribing continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who are treated with at least three insulin injections. Not only is the use of continuous glucose monitoring much more comfortable than self-monitoring with finger sticks, but continuous monitoring also helps reduce glycosylated hemoglobin while decreasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Recently, another indication has begun to be reimbursed in France: Type 2 diabetes under mono-insulin injection when the diabetes is not well controlled.

But alongside these situations, there are two questions that are worth considering.
 

Untreated Type 2 Diabetes 

First, is continuous glucose monitoring desirable for all patients with diabetes, even those not treated with insulin and even when blood sugar levels are well managed? Intuitively, one might think that it can’t hurt and that continuous monitoring of blood sugar can only improve things. We have some evidence supporting this idea, but the level of proof is quite weak. It is not clear that continuous monitoring can improve patients’ awareness of the impact of dietary choices or physical activity on blood sugar. Obviously, one can imagine that continuously monitoring glucose will encourage a shift toward more beneficial behaviors. But honestly, today, we do not have proof that wearing a continuous glucose monitor can improve behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes who are treated with noninsulin antidiabetic medications.

Furthermore, a significant study has shown that while the effectiveness is more evident in patients treated with insulin, strong evidence suggests that continuous glucose monitoring could also reduce glycosylated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. A close examination of the results suggests that the benefits generally are less than those observed in insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

When we look at the scientific literature, two factors seem particularly important to consider if choosing to prescribe a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. The first is the method used, because the results can vary depending on the method. It appears that only self-monitoring that allows the patient to follow glucose in real time is effective, unlike blind monitoring that allows only a retrospective analysis of blood sugar levels. In the latter case, the patient wears the sensor, and after a week, 10 days, or 15 days, the results are analyzed, possibly with a health care provider. It seems that this is not very effective in improving glycosylated hemoglobin and dietary and physical activity behavior.

The second essential factor to consider is the need for an education program for the use of these sensors to be helpful. If sensors are used but nothing else is done, it does not seem logical. Seeing blood sugar levels without being able to understand them and act accordingly seems of little use. Scientific literature seems to confirm this idea. 
 

Patients Without Diabetes

Now there is another question. We have discussed patients with type 2 diabetes without insulin. It’s trendy to talk about the potential benefits of continuous glucose monitors in patients without diabetes. The idea is emerging that these monitors could be used to refine the diagnosis of diabetes or to better predict the onset of diabetes in the subsequent years.

Others claim that continuous glucose monitors are an effective way to induce a change in dietary and physical activity behaviors in patients with prediabetes. One can, for example, tell a patient, “You are at risk of developing diabetes, so by monitoring your glucose, you will change your behavior.” Honestly, the scientific data we have today do not support these ideas, and I sincerely believe that it is not advisable today to recommend, as some would like, the mass use of monitors, whether in patients with overweight or obesity, or in patients with prediabetes. This goes for suggestions for using the monitor for 7-10 days per year, in the form of a session to try to reduce the risk for diabetes by motivating patients to change their behavior. We have no evidence at all that this can work. And in my opinion, with this kind of discourse, we ultimately risk, as usual, encouraging patients who are already “fans” of self-checks and self-monitoring to get health data, even if they do not know how to interpret it. Maybe even the doctor they ask for interpretation will not be trained to interpret the results of these monitors.

Spreading the idea that monitors are useful for preventing diabetes has a side effect: It hinders progress on the essential issue. Today, one of the problems in diabetes and prediabetes is that screening is not done often enough, and 20% of patients with diabetes are still unaware of their diagnosis. The management of early diabetes or prediabetes, in my opinion, is not optimal in routine care today. So, I think that adding the idea that using monitors could be beneficial dilutes the main information.

Having said that, I sometimes offer continuous glucose monitoring to some of my patients on a case-by-case basis. I believe that with proper support and an educational program, it can be beneficial for certain patients.
 

In Practice

In summary, I am totally opposed to the normalization of the use of monitors. I think it is our role as health care professionals to warn the public that even if it is accessible — anyone can buy a reader, a sensor — it is not necessarily beneficial, and it may even distract us from what is essential. But as a specialist, I think that using a monitor within a genuine care plan seems reasonable. Ultimately, it’s just personalized medicine.

Dr. Hansel is an endocrinologist-diabetologist and nutritionist, Department of Diabetology-Endocrinology-Nutrition, Hôpital Bichat, and a university lecturer and hospital practitioner, Université Paris-Diderot, France. He discloses ties with Iriade, Sanofi-Aventis, and Amgen.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.