Conference Coverage

Infants who were introduced to a low-protein diet – high in fruit, vegetables, and roots – ate more fruits and vegetables at 12 and 18 months of age, compared with those who ate a conventional diet, in a new study.

The “Nordic diet” has shown health benefits in children and adults, but has not been studied in infants, said Ulrica Johansson, MD, of Umeå (Sweden) University, in a presentation on the study at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.

A healthy and sustainable diet early in life could have a significant impact on future health, Dr. Johansson said in an interview.

Dr. Johansson and colleagues aimed to investigate the effect of a Nordic diet in infants aged 4-18 months in the OTIS trial. All infants were breastfed or formula-fed at baseline.
 

Study methods and results

A total of 250 infants aged 4-6 months were randomized to consuming a Nordic diet or a conventional diet. Those in the Nordic group received exposures to Nordic foods and flavors, including Nordic fruit, berries, vegetables, and roots. Those in the conventional group received baby food products that followed the current Swedish dietary recommendations for infants. The researchers collected data on dietary intake, biomarkers, and growth from baseline up to 18 months of age.

Notably, acceptance of all the flavors in the Nordic diet was high, including those with sour or bitter taste, such as cranberry and white radish, Dr. Johansson said in her presentation. Food refusals were few, and did not differ among the Nordic food offerings.

At both 12- and 18-month follow-ups, infants in the Nordic group consumed 42%-45% more fruits and vegetables compared with those in the conventional group (P < .001). Plasma folate levels also were significantly higher in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months (P < .001 and P < .003, respectively).

The daily mean protein intake ranged from 17% to 29% lower in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months. The intake of protein in terms of g/kg of body weight was significantly lower in the Nordic group, at both time points. Lower protein intake was confirmed by blood urea nitrogen measurements.

The protein intake in the Nordic group still fell within the safe level recommended for healthy growth in young children by the World Health Organization, noted Dr. Johansson, and no significant differences were observed in growth between the groups. Total energy intake, iron status, and duration of breastfeeding also remained similar between the groups throughout the study period.

Parents received support from research nurses via social media and monthly clinic visits, which she believes contributed to the success of the intervention, she said.
 

Nordic diet offers feasible encouragement of healthy eating

The key message for clinicians, and for parents of young children, is that “the protein-reduced, Nordic diet is both feasible and safe for infants’ growth, nutritional requirements, and development during the complementary feeding period,” Dr. Johansson said in an interview. “Thus, it may serve as a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet alternative for infants and their parents in the future.”

“Nordic foods are feasible to use when exposing infants to a variety of flavors so that healthy food preferences can be established early in life; Nordic berries and some root vegetables are preferable when introducing bitter and sour tastes during the sensitive period,” she added.

“Multicomponent interventions with long-term follow-up are required to advance the field of child nutrition research,” Dr. Johansson emphasized. Home-based interventions are lacking, and “more studies are needed to bridge the gap in research between the transfer period from baby food to family food at 1-2 years of age.”

Large, randomized controlled studies of Nordic diet during infancy and later childhood are needed as well, said Dr. Johansson. “The long-term effects of the Nordic diet during this highly dynamic period of childhood need continued follow-up to school age to give indications of any lasting health effects,” and the researchers plan to follow the current study population at 7 years of age.

Findings reinforce need for better nutrition

Previous research documents concern for childhood obesity associated with higher intake of protein, fats and overall calories in infancy, said Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., in an interview. “The inclusion of high-calorie, high-fat foods contributes to obesity in all children, so focusing on intake of fruits and vegetables is extremely important early in life,” she said.

A key barrier to the widespread use of a Nordic-type diet is that and vegetables tend to be more expensive than other foods and may not be readily available to all families, especially lower income families, Dr. Haut added.

However, for primary care clinicians, the current study reinforces the need to encourage the intake of fruits and vegetables at all ages, beginning in infancy, she said.

Looking ahead, “there is still limited information in the literature about the ideal recommended daily protein, except for increased amounts needed for preterm infants, early infancy, and during periods of healing,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Some controls for this study were not included in the abstract, such as monitoring what foods were given to the infants in the conventional group. Parent and caregiver interpretation of recommendations can be highly variable,” she noted. Also, “The activity levels of late infancy and toddlers can vary in terms of energy usage, especially when crawling, walking, running and other exercise-related activities begin. These factors were not readily available in the abstract/study,” she said.  

The OTIS trial was sponsored by Semper. Dr. Johansson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Infants who were introduced to a low-protein diet – high in fruit, vegetables, and roots – ate more fruits and vegetables at 12 and 18 months of age, compared with those who ate a conventional diet, in a new study.

The “Nordic diet” has shown health benefits in children and adults, but has not been studied in infants, said Ulrica Johansson, MD, of Umeå (Sweden) University, in a presentation on the study at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.

A healthy and sustainable diet early in life could have a significant impact on future health, Dr. Johansson said in an interview.

Dr. Johansson and colleagues aimed to investigate the effect of a Nordic diet in infants aged 4-18 months in the OTIS trial. All infants were breastfed or formula-fed at baseline.
 

Study methods and results

A total of 250 infants aged 4-6 months were randomized to consuming a Nordic diet or a conventional diet. Those in the Nordic group received exposures to Nordic foods and flavors, including Nordic fruit, berries, vegetables, and roots. Those in the conventional group received baby food products that followed the current Swedish dietary recommendations for infants. The researchers collected data on dietary intake, biomarkers, and growth from baseline up to 18 months of age.

Notably, acceptance of all the flavors in the Nordic diet was high, including those with sour or bitter taste, such as cranberry and white radish, Dr. Johansson said in her presentation. Food refusals were few, and did not differ among the Nordic food offerings.

At both 12- and 18-month follow-ups, infants in the Nordic group consumed 42%-45% more fruits and vegetables compared with those in the conventional group (P < .001). Plasma folate levels also were significantly higher in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months (P < .001 and P < .003, respectively).

The daily mean protein intake ranged from 17% to 29% lower in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months. The intake of protein in terms of g/kg of body weight was significantly lower in the Nordic group, at both time points. Lower protein intake was confirmed by blood urea nitrogen measurements.

The protein intake in the Nordic group still fell within the safe level recommended for healthy growth in young children by the World Health Organization, noted Dr. Johansson, and no significant differences were observed in growth between the groups. Total energy intake, iron status, and duration of breastfeeding also remained similar between the groups throughout the study period.

Parents received support from research nurses via social media and monthly clinic visits, which she believes contributed to the success of the intervention, she said.
 

Nordic diet offers feasible encouragement of healthy eating

The key message for clinicians, and for parents of young children, is that “the protein-reduced, Nordic diet is both feasible and safe for infants’ growth, nutritional requirements, and development during the complementary feeding period,” Dr. Johansson said in an interview. “Thus, it may serve as a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet alternative for infants and their parents in the future.”

“Nordic foods are feasible to use when exposing infants to a variety of flavors so that healthy food preferences can be established early in life; Nordic berries and some root vegetables are preferable when introducing bitter and sour tastes during the sensitive period,” she added.

“Multicomponent interventions with long-term follow-up are required to advance the field of child nutrition research,” Dr. Johansson emphasized. Home-based interventions are lacking, and “more studies are needed to bridge the gap in research between the transfer period from baby food to family food at 1-2 years of age.”

Large, randomized controlled studies of Nordic diet during infancy and later childhood are needed as well, said Dr. Johansson. “The long-term effects of the Nordic diet during this highly dynamic period of childhood need continued follow-up to school age to give indications of any lasting health effects,” and the researchers plan to follow the current study population at 7 years of age.

Findings reinforce need for better nutrition

Previous research documents concern for childhood obesity associated with higher intake of protein, fats and overall calories in infancy, said Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., in an interview. “The inclusion of high-calorie, high-fat foods contributes to obesity in all children, so focusing on intake of fruits and vegetables is extremely important early in life,” she said.

A key barrier to the widespread use of a Nordic-type diet is that and vegetables tend to be more expensive than other foods and may not be readily available to all families, especially lower income families, Dr. Haut added.

However, for primary care clinicians, the current study reinforces the need to encourage the intake of fruits and vegetables at all ages, beginning in infancy, she said.

Looking ahead, “there is still limited information in the literature about the ideal recommended daily protein, except for increased amounts needed for preterm infants, early infancy, and during periods of healing,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Some controls for this study were not included in the abstract, such as monitoring what foods were given to the infants in the conventional group. Parent and caregiver interpretation of recommendations can be highly variable,” she noted. Also, “The activity levels of late infancy and toddlers can vary in terms of energy usage, especially when crawling, walking, running and other exercise-related activities begin. These factors were not readily available in the abstract/study,” she said.  

The OTIS trial was sponsored by Semper. Dr. Johansson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Infants who were introduced to a low-protein diet – high in fruit, vegetables, and roots – ate more fruits and vegetables at 12 and 18 months of age, compared with those who ate a conventional diet, in a new study.

The “Nordic diet” has shown health benefits in children and adults, but has not been studied in infants, said Ulrica Johansson, MD, of Umeå (Sweden) University, in a presentation on the study at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.

A healthy and sustainable diet early in life could have a significant impact on future health, Dr. Johansson said in an interview.

Dr. Johansson and colleagues aimed to investigate the effect of a Nordic diet in infants aged 4-18 months in the OTIS trial. All infants were breastfed or formula-fed at baseline.
 

Study methods and results

A total of 250 infants aged 4-6 months were randomized to consuming a Nordic diet or a conventional diet. Those in the Nordic group received exposures to Nordic foods and flavors, including Nordic fruit, berries, vegetables, and roots. Those in the conventional group received baby food products that followed the current Swedish dietary recommendations for infants. The researchers collected data on dietary intake, biomarkers, and growth from baseline up to 18 months of age.

Notably, acceptance of all the flavors in the Nordic diet was high, including those with sour or bitter taste, such as cranberry and white radish, Dr. Johansson said in her presentation. Food refusals were few, and did not differ among the Nordic food offerings.

At both 12- and 18-month follow-ups, infants in the Nordic group consumed 42%-45% more fruits and vegetables compared with those in the conventional group (P < .001). Plasma folate levels also were significantly higher in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months (P < .001 and P < .003, respectively).

The daily mean protein intake ranged from 17% to 29% lower in the Nordic group compared with in the conventional group, at both 12 months and 18 months. The intake of protein in terms of g/kg of body weight was significantly lower in the Nordic group, at both time points. Lower protein intake was confirmed by blood urea nitrogen measurements.

The protein intake in the Nordic group still fell within the safe level recommended for healthy growth in young children by the World Health Organization, noted Dr. Johansson, and no significant differences were observed in growth between the groups. Total energy intake, iron status, and duration of breastfeeding also remained similar between the groups throughout the study period.

Parents received support from research nurses via social media and monthly clinic visits, which she believes contributed to the success of the intervention, she said.
 

Nordic diet offers feasible encouragement of healthy eating

The key message for clinicians, and for parents of young children, is that “the protein-reduced, Nordic diet is both feasible and safe for infants’ growth, nutritional requirements, and development during the complementary feeding period,” Dr. Johansson said in an interview. “Thus, it may serve as a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet alternative for infants and their parents in the future.”

“Nordic foods are feasible to use when exposing infants to a variety of flavors so that healthy food preferences can be established early in life; Nordic berries and some root vegetables are preferable when introducing bitter and sour tastes during the sensitive period,” she added.

“Multicomponent interventions with long-term follow-up are required to advance the field of child nutrition research,” Dr. Johansson emphasized. Home-based interventions are lacking, and “more studies are needed to bridge the gap in research between the transfer period from baby food to family food at 1-2 years of age.”

Large, randomized controlled studies of Nordic diet during infancy and later childhood are needed as well, said Dr. Johansson. “The long-term effects of the Nordic diet during this highly dynamic period of childhood need continued follow-up to school age to give indications of any lasting health effects,” and the researchers plan to follow the current study population at 7 years of age.

Findings reinforce need for better nutrition

Previous research documents concern for childhood obesity associated with higher intake of protein, fats and overall calories in infancy, said Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., in an interview. “The inclusion of high-calorie, high-fat foods contributes to obesity in all children, so focusing on intake of fruits and vegetables is extremely important early in life,” she said.

A key barrier to the widespread use of a Nordic-type diet is that and vegetables tend to be more expensive than other foods and may not be readily available to all families, especially lower income families, Dr. Haut added.

However, for primary care clinicians, the current study reinforces the need to encourage the intake of fruits and vegetables at all ages, beginning in infancy, she said.

Looking ahead, “there is still limited information in the literature about the ideal recommended daily protein, except for increased amounts needed for preterm infants, early infancy, and during periods of healing,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Some controls for this study were not included in the abstract, such as monitoring what foods were given to the infants in the conventional group. Parent and caregiver interpretation of recommendations can be highly variable,” she noted. Also, “The activity levels of late infancy and toddlers can vary in terms of energy usage, especially when crawling, walking, running and other exercise-related activities begin. These factors were not readily available in the abstract/study,” she said.  

The OTIS trial was sponsored by Semper. Dr. Johansson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Racial residential segregation was significantly associated with poor glycemic control in Black adolescents with type 1 diabetes, according to data from 144 individuals.

Racial residential segregation is considered a form of systemic racism that involves limited access to resources, including health care resources, Deborah A. Ellis, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

In the study, the researchers recruited youth aged 10-15 years with type 1 diabetes from seven pediatric clinics in two large U.S. cities. The mean age of the participants was 13.3 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 11.5%.

Diabetes management was based on self-reports using the Diabetes Management Scale (DMS). Racial residential segregation, which refers to the separation of groups within a geographic area, was determined using data from the U.S. Census using Location Quotient (LQ) at the block group level; this showed the ratio of the Black population to the total population, compared with the same ratio in the metropolitan area.

The mean family income was $34,163, and the mean LQ was 3.04, “indicating residence in highly segregated neighborhoods,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, racial residential segregation was significantly associated with A1c (P = .001) but not with DMS (P = .311). The researchers also conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis including age, insulin delivery method, neighborhood adversity (a 9-item composite with variables including percentage of persons living in poverty, percentage of households with no vehicle), and family income. They found that only age, insulin delivery method, and racial residential segregation had significant impacts of A1c levels.

The study was limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports.

However, the results are consistent with previous studies showing the potential negative health effects of structural racism, the researchers wrote. The findings suggest that racial residential segregation has an independent effect on glycemic control in Black youth with type 1 diabetes, and consequently, “advocacy and policy making to address such inequities could improve diabetes population health.”
 

Location makes a difference

“Poor neighborhoods have been associated with high rates of obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol,” Romesh K. Khardori, MD, professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview. However, “not much is known about impact of racial segregation on type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Khardori, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Khardori was not surprised by the current study findings. “In our practice, Black youth coming from racially segregated or low-income housing projects often tend have poor diabetes control, with repeated admissions to local hospitals for managing acute/chronic complications of type 1 diabetes,” he said.

The current findings reflect Dr. Khardori’s clinical experience and highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the increased risk for poor glycemic control and poor outcomes in this vulnerable population.

More research is needed to expand the observations of the current study, Dr. Khardori said. Future researchers also should “involve community leaders and politicians to educate and garner more support for mitigation efforts.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Ellis and Dr. Khardori had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Racial residential segregation was significantly associated with poor glycemic control in Black adolescents with type 1 diabetes, according to data from 144 individuals.

Racial residential segregation is considered a form of systemic racism that involves limited access to resources, including health care resources, Deborah A. Ellis, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

In the study, the researchers recruited youth aged 10-15 years with type 1 diabetes from seven pediatric clinics in two large U.S. cities. The mean age of the participants was 13.3 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 11.5%.

Diabetes management was based on self-reports using the Diabetes Management Scale (DMS). Racial residential segregation, which refers to the separation of groups within a geographic area, was determined using data from the U.S. Census using Location Quotient (LQ) at the block group level; this showed the ratio of the Black population to the total population, compared with the same ratio in the metropolitan area.

The mean family income was $34,163, and the mean LQ was 3.04, “indicating residence in highly segregated neighborhoods,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, racial residential segregation was significantly associated with A1c (P = .001) but not with DMS (P = .311). The researchers also conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis including age, insulin delivery method, neighborhood adversity (a 9-item composite with variables including percentage of persons living in poverty, percentage of households with no vehicle), and family income. They found that only age, insulin delivery method, and racial residential segregation had significant impacts of A1c levels.

The study was limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports.

However, the results are consistent with previous studies showing the potential negative health effects of structural racism, the researchers wrote. The findings suggest that racial residential segregation has an independent effect on glycemic control in Black youth with type 1 diabetes, and consequently, “advocacy and policy making to address such inequities could improve diabetes population health.”
 

Location makes a difference

“Poor neighborhoods have been associated with high rates of obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol,” Romesh K. Khardori, MD, professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview. However, “not much is known about impact of racial segregation on type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Khardori, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Khardori was not surprised by the current study findings. “In our practice, Black youth coming from racially segregated or low-income housing projects often tend have poor diabetes control, with repeated admissions to local hospitals for managing acute/chronic complications of type 1 diabetes,” he said.

The current findings reflect Dr. Khardori’s clinical experience and highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the increased risk for poor glycemic control and poor outcomes in this vulnerable population.

More research is needed to expand the observations of the current study, Dr. Khardori said. Future researchers also should “involve community leaders and politicians to educate and garner more support for mitigation efforts.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Ellis and Dr. Khardori had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Racial residential segregation was significantly associated with poor glycemic control in Black adolescents with type 1 diabetes, according to data from 144 individuals.

Racial residential segregation is considered a form of systemic racism that involves limited access to resources, including health care resources, Deborah A. Ellis, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

In the study, the researchers recruited youth aged 10-15 years with type 1 diabetes from seven pediatric clinics in two large U.S. cities. The mean age of the participants was 13.3 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 11.5%.

Diabetes management was based on self-reports using the Diabetes Management Scale (DMS). Racial residential segregation, which refers to the separation of groups within a geographic area, was determined using data from the U.S. Census using Location Quotient (LQ) at the block group level; this showed the ratio of the Black population to the total population, compared with the same ratio in the metropolitan area.

The mean family income was $34,163, and the mean LQ was 3.04, “indicating residence in highly segregated neighborhoods,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, racial residential segregation was significantly associated with A1c (P = .001) but not with DMS (P = .311). The researchers also conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis including age, insulin delivery method, neighborhood adversity (a 9-item composite with variables including percentage of persons living in poverty, percentage of households with no vehicle), and family income. They found that only age, insulin delivery method, and racial residential segregation had significant impacts of A1c levels.

The study was limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports.

However, the results are consistent with previous studies showing the potential negative health effects of structural racism, the researchers wrote. The findings suggest that racial residential segregation has an independent effect on glycemic control in Black youth with type 1 diabetes, and consequently, “advocacy and policy making to address such inequities could improve diabetes population health.”
 

Location makes a difference

“Poor neighborhoods have been associated with high rates of obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol,” Romesh K. Khardori, MD, professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview. However, “not much is known about impact of racial segregation on type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Khardori, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Khardori was not surprised by the current study findings. “In our practice, Black youth coming from racially segregated or low-income housing projects often tend have poor diabetes control, with repeated admissions to local hospitals for managing acute/chronic complications of type 1 diabetes,” he said.

The current findings reflect Dr. Khardori’s clinical experience and highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the increased risk for poor glycemic control and poor outcomes in this vulnerable population.

More research is needed to expand the observations of the current study, Dr. Khardori said. Future researchers also should “involve community leaders and politicians to educate and garner more support for mitigation efforts.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Ellis and Dr. Khardori had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

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

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

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

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

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

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Poor objective sleep efficiency may contribute to older adults overestimating their cognitive abilities, preliminary findings from a pilot study of objective and subjective cognitive measures have shown.

The pilot study underscored the important role of objective sleep measures to better understand discrepancies when patients’ own reports of everyday cognitive function don’t align with objective cognitive profiles, Amy Costa, MA, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said in reporting the results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“Between our previously published paper and these new pilot results, we’re reporting evidence that suggests sleep is playing a role between the objective and subjective cognition relationship,” Ms. Costa said in an interview. “It is possible that these older adults who are sleeping poorly may be worse at understanding how well they’re doing cognitively. That’s really important for doctors. For example, if we can’t diagnose someone with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia earlier, then we can’t intervene as quickly.”
 

Sleep efficiency, cognition, and patient complaints

These findings are in agreement with those Ms. Costa and colleagues recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, she said.

The current pilot study included 35 older adults with an average age of 69 years who had insomnia complaints. They completed one night of home-based polysomnography – specifically with the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM – and a battery of cognitive tests. Their average sleep deficiency was 57%, “indicating potentially pretty severe insomnia,” Ms. Costa said.

“We found that sleep efficiency – that is the percentage of time spent sleeping while in bed – moderated the association between self reports and objective measures of cognitive distractibility,” Ms. Costa said in reporting the results. “In other words, our findings suggest that individuals with lower sleep efficiency who are performing the worst cognitively have the least amount of complaints. Basically, this can be thought of as that they are overestimating their cognitive performance.”
 

Sleep stage versus working memory and distractibility

The pilot study also focused on how the percentage of lighter-stage sleep, or N1 sleep, moderated the associations between working memory, as measured by Sternberg performance, and memory, distractibility, and blunders measured with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

At the highest percentage of N1 sleep, worse working memory was associated with fewer complaints about memory, distractibility, and blunders, Ms. Costa said.

“The percentage of lighter-stage N1 sleep and sleep efficiency moderated the association between cognitive flexibility and distractibility,” Ms. Costa said.  At the lowest percentage of N1 sleep, worse cognitive flexibility was associated with more distractibility, while at the highest percentage of N1 sleep worse cognitive flexibility showed a reverse effect; it was linked to less distractibility. The lowest percentage of sleep efficiency showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and less distractibility, but the highest percentage of SE showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and more distractibility.

“So in terms of evaluating their cognitive performance, the worse working memory was associated with more blunder complaints in individuals with the lowest percentage of N1,” she said. “So whenever individuals were spending less time in N1, they were able to better recognized their cognitive ability.”

She added, “Overall, more light and more fragmented sleep moderated the association between worse objective and less cognitive complaints, suggesting that these individuals might be overestimating their cognitive abilities.”

The findings indicate that evaluation of objective sleep should consider objectively measured N1 and sleep efficiency to better understand when subjective cognitive complaints and neurophysiological/objective cognitive profiles don’t align, she said.
 

Important indicators of cognitive deficits

“Specifically, for an older adult who comes into the clinic with complaints of waking up during the night, low sleep efficiency and more lighter-stage sleep might be really important indicators that they are probably not going to be the best at identifying their cognitive abilities or deficits,” she said.

Future directions for this research include collecting more data and looking at other sleep measures, such as using rapid-eye movement sleep, as potential moderators for the relationship between cognitive outcomes, evaluating sleep architecture more closely, and evaluating outcomes in a longitudinal study, Ms. Costa said.
 

The importance of objectively measured sleep

“Studies like this one using objectively measured sleep are important because much of the prior literature relied on self-reported sleep measures,” said Brendan P. Lucey, MD, associate professor of neurology and head of the sleep medicine section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “This study suggests how objectively measured sleep may mediate discrepancies in objective/subjective cognitive dysfunction. Future studies need to work out if we need to add objective sleep measures when evaluating cognitive complaints in older adults.”

Dr. Lucey, who was not involved in the study, voiced one concern with the pilot study methodology the future research should address: the use of the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM to measure N1 sleep, which, as he noted, records a single-channel electroencephalogram over the forehead. “Scoring N1 sleep relies on attenuation of the alpha rhythm over the occipital region and the Sleep Profiler is not as accurate as in-lab polysomnography for this sleep stage,” he said.

The pilot study received funding from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Ms. Costa and her coauthors have no disclosures. Dr. Lucey disclosed relationships with Merck, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and Beacon Biosignals.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Poor objective sleep efficiency may contribute to older adults overestimating their cognitive abilities, preliminary findings from a pilot study of objective and subjective cognitive measures have shown.

The pilot study underscored the important role of objective sleep measures to better understand discrepancies when patients’ own reports of everyday cognitive function don’t align with objective cognitive profiles, Amy Costa, MA, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said in reporting the results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“Between our previously published paper and these new pilot results, we’re reporting evidence that suggests sleep is playing a role between the objective and subjective cognition relationship,” Ms. Costa said in an interview. “It is possible that these older adults who are sleeping poorly may be worse at understanding how well they’re doing cognitively. That’s really important for doctors. For example, if we can’t diagnose someone with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia earlier, then we can’t intervene as quickly.”
 

Sleep efficiency, cognition, and patient complaints

These findings are in agreement with those Ms. Costa and colleagues recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, she said.

The current pilot study included 35 older adults with an average age of 69 years who had insomnia complaints. They completed one night of home-based polysomnography – specifically with the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM – and a battery of cognitive tests. Their average sleep deficiency was 57%, “indicating potentially pretty severe insomnia,” Ms. Costa said.

“We found that sleep efficiency – that is the percentage of time spent sleeping while in bed – moderated the association between self reports and objective measures of cognitive distractibility,” Ms. Costa said in reporting the results. “In other words, our findings suggest that individuals with lower sleep efficiency who are performing the worst cognitively have the least amount of complaints. Basically, this can be thought of as that they are overestimating their cognitive performance.”
 

Sleep stage versus working memory and distractibility

The pilot study also focused on how the percentage of lighter-stage sleep, or N1 sleep, moderated the associations between working memory, as measured by Sternberg performance, and memory, distractibility, and blunders measured with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

At the highest percentage of N1 sleep, worse working memory was associated with fewer complaints about memory, distractibility, and blunders, Ms. Costa said.

“The percentage of lighter-stage N1 sleep and sleep efficiency moderated the association between cognitive flexibility and distractibility,” Ms. Costa said.  At the lowest percentage of N1 sleep, worse cognitive flexibility was associated with more distractibility, while at the highest percentage of N1 sleep worse cognitive flexibility showed a reverse effect; it was linked to less distractibility. The lowest percentage of sleep efficiency showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and less distractibility, but the highest percentage of SE showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and more distractibility.

“So in terms of evaluating their cognitive performance, the worse working memory was associated with more blunder complaints in individuals with the lowest percentage of N1,” she said. “So whenever individuals were spending less time in N1, they were able to better recognized their cognitive ability.”

She added, “Overall, more light and more fragmented sleep moderated the association between worse objective and less cognitive complaints, suggesting that these individuals might be overestimating their cognitive abilities.”

The findings indicate that evaluation of objective sleep should consider objectively measured N1 and sleep efficiency to better understand when subjective cognitive complaints and neurophysiological/objective cognitive profiles don’t align, she said.
 

Important indicators of cognitive deficits

“Specifically, for an older adult who comes into the clinic with complaints of waking up during the night, low sleep efficiency and more lighter-stage sleep might be really important indicators that they are probably not going to be the best at identifying their cognitive abilities or deficits,” she said.

Future directions for this research include collecting more data and looking at other sleep measures, such as using rapid-eye movement sleep, as potential moderators for the relationship between cognitive outcomes, evaluating sleep architecture more closely, and evaluating outcomes in a longitudinal study, Ms. Costa said.
 

The importance of objectively measured sleep

“Studies like this one using objectively measured sleep are important because much of the prior literature relied on self-reported sleep measures,” said Brendan P. Lucey, MD, associate professor of neurology and head of the sleep medicine section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “This study suggests how objectively measured sleep may mediate discrepancies in objective/subjective cognitive dysfunction. Future studies need to work out if we need to add objective sleep measures when evaluating cognitive complaints in older adults.”

Dr. Lucey, who was not involved in the study, voiced one concern with the pilot study methodology the future research should address: the use of the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM to measure N1 sleep, which, as he noted, records a single-channel electroencephalogram over the forehead. “Scoring N1 sleep relies on attenuation of the alpha rhythm over the occipital region and the Sleep Profiler is not as accurate as in-lab polysomnography for this sleep stage,” he said.

The pilot study received funding from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Ms. Costa and her coauthors have no disclosures. Dr. Lucey disclosed relationships with Merck, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and Beacon Biosignals.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Poor objective sleep efficiency may contribute to older adults overestimating their cognitive abilities, preliminary findings from a pilot study of objective and subjective cognitive measures have shown.

The pilot study underscored the important role of objective sleep measures to better understand discrepancies when patients’ own reports of everyday cognitive function don’t align with objective cognitive profiles, Amy Costa, MA, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said in reporting the results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“Between our previously published paper and these new pilot results, we’re reporting evidence that suggests sleep is playing a role between the objective and subjective cognition relationship,” Ms. Costa said in an interview. “It is possible that these older adults who are sleeping poorly may be worse at understanding how well they’re doing cognitively. That’s really important for doctors. For example, if we can’t diagnose someone with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia earlier, then we can’t intervene as quickly.”
 

Sleep efficiency, cognition, and patient complaints

These findings are in agreement with those Ms. Costa and colleagues recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, she said.

The current pilot study included 35 older adults with an average age of 69 years who had insomnia complaints. They completed one night of home-based polysomnography – specifically with the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM – and a battery of cognitive tests. Their average sleep deficiency was 57%, “indicating potentially pretty severe insomnia,” Ms. Costa said.

“We found that sleep efficiency – that is the percentage of time spent sleeping while in bed – moderated the association between self reports and objective measures of cognitive distractibility,” Ms. Costa said in reporting the results. “In other words, our findings suggest that individuals with lower sleep efficiency who are performing the worst cognitively have the least amount of complaints. Basically, this can be thought of as that they are overestimating their cognitive performance.”
 

Sleep stage versus working memory and distractibility

The pilot study also focused on how the percentage of lighter-stage sleep, or N1 sleep, moderated the associations between working memory, as measured by Sternberg performance, and memory, distractibility, and blunders measured with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

At the highest percentage of N1 sleep, worse working memory was associated with fewer complaints about memory, distractibility, and blunders, Ms. Costa said.

“The percentage of lighter-stage N1 sleep and sleep efficiency moderated the association between cognitive flexibility and distractibility,” Ms. Costa said.  At the lowest percentage of N1 sleep, worse cognitive flexibility was associated with more distractibility, while at the highest percentage of N1 sleep worse cognitive flexibility showed a reverse effect; it was linked to less distractibility. The lowest percentage of sleep efficiency showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and less distractibility, but the highest percentage of SE showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and more distractibility.

“So in terms of evaluating their cognitive performance, the worse working memory was associated with more blunder complaints in individuals with the lowest percentage of N1,” she said. “So whenever individuals were spending less time in N1, they were able to better recognized their cognitive ability.”

She added, “Overall, more light and more fragmented sleep moderated the association between worse objective and less cognitive complaints, suggesting that these individuals might be overestimating their cognitive abilities.”

The findings indicate that evaluation of objective sleep should consider objectively measured N1 and sleep efficiency to better understand when subjective cognitive complaints and neurophysiological/objective cognitive profiles don’t align, she said.
 

Important indicators of cognitive deficits

“Specifically, for an older adult who comes into the clinic with complaints of waking up during the night, low sleep efficiency and more lighter-stage sleep might be really important indicators that they are probably not going to be the best at identifying their cognitive abilities or deficits,” she said.

Future directions for this research include collecting more data and looking at other sleep measures, such as using rapid-eye movement sleep, as potential moderators for the relationship between cognitive outcomes, evaluating sleep architecture more closely, and evaluating outcomes in a longitudinal study, Ms. Costa said.
 

The importance of objectively measured sleep

“Studies like this one using objectively measured sleep are important because much of the prior literature relied on self-reported sleep measures,” said Brendan P. Lucey, MD, associate professor of neurology and head of the sleep medicine section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “This study suggests how objectively measured sleep may mediate discrepancies in objective/subjective cognitive dysfunction. Future studies need to work out if we need to add objective sleep measures when evaluating cognitive complaints in older adults.”

Dr. Lucey, who was not involved in the study, voiced one concern with the pilot study methodology the future research should address: the use of the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM to measure N1 sleep, which, as he noted, records a single-channel electroencephalogram over the forehead. “Scoring N1 sleep relies on attenuation of the alpha rhythm over the occipital region and the Sleep Profiler is not as accurate as in-lab polysomnography for this sleep stage,” he said.

The pilot study received funding from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Ms. Costa and her coauthors have no disclosures. Dr. Lucey disclosed relationships with Merck, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and Beacon Biosignals.

An open-label extension of Biogen’s phase 3 VALOR study shows statistically significant benefits for the company’s novel antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), tofersen, in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) caused by superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene mutations.

The 1-year results, presented at the European Network for the Cure of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ENCALS) 2022 meeting, show a deceleration in functional decline that is similar, but “more pronounced” than the previously reported 6-month results, which were not statistically significant, said lead investigator Timothy Miller, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the ALS Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

“What I thought we saw in the first data cut is confirmed by what we saw in the longer data,” he said in an interview. “There were trends [showing] those treated with tofersen did a bit better, but it was hard to be sure. It was hard to be confident in what we were seeing at that early time point.”

Now, with 6 more months of data, Dr. Miller says he is confident that tofersen is slowing down the neurodegenerative disease process. “I see results that I’m encouraged by,” he said. “As a clinician who treats people with ALS with this mutation I would want this drug to be available to people that I see in my clinic.”
 

One-year VALOR study results

The primary efficacy objective of the VALOR study was to show the 28-week impact of 100 mg tofersen (three doses given about 2 weeks apart, then five doses given every 4 weeks), versus placebo, on function, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R). The open-label extension switched placebo-treated patients to tofersen (delayed-start group) and continued to compare them with the early-start group up to 1 year. This open-label extension phase included 49 patients who had been on early-start tofersen and 18 patients in the delayed-start group.

For the primary endpoint, change from baseline in 48-point ALSFRS-R score, there was a statistically significant benefit for the early-start patients with these patients scoring 3.5 points higher than the delayed-start group (P = .0272, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-6.7). This means that both groups declined in function, which is expected in ALS, but the early-start group declined more slowly.

There was also a benefit associated with early-start tofersen for a number of secondary endpoints, including change from baseline in total SOD1 cerebrospinal fluid concentration (CSF SOD1), plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and respiratory function.

“This drug targets the MRNA of SOD1, so it lowers the MRNA and then the SOD1 protein falls,” explained Dr. Miller, adding that these levels dropped 21% in the delayed start group, and 33% in the early-start group. “I think the data pretty clearly show that [tofersen] does what it is supposed to do, and that is the first step.”

Neurofilament light chain, a marker of neurodegeneration, also dropped by 41% in the delayed-start group, and 51% in the early-start group.

Respiratory function, as measured by percent predicted slow vital capacity (SVC), also declined 9.2% more slowly in the early- versus delayed-start group (P = .0159).

Finally, muscle strength, as measured by handheld dynamometry (HHD) score, declined more slowly in the early-start group compared with the late-start group, with an adjusted mean difference in score of 2.8 (P = 0.0186).

Dr. Miller said that the data show that it takes time for tofersen to impact clinical function, but there are signs of benefit before that. “I think what you see is that just starting on the drug, the first thing that happens is SOD1 goes down, the next thing is that neurofilament decreases, but clinical function is not yet changing. It takes time. What I see in these data is that it takes time for us to see that effect on clinical function.”
 

The bigger picture

While acknowledging that tofersen acts on a genetic mutation found in only about 2% of ALS, Dr. Miller said the study findings carry significance for the wider ALS patient population.

“Assuming we agree there is a clinical effect here, assuming we agree that there is real stabilization of clinical function, I think if we agree on that point then we know that ALS is now a treatable disorder. And that’s a really important point. I’m not sure that we knew that before,” he said. “Yes, there are FDA-approved medications that slow down ALS a bit, but they don’t stabilize it, and if we get the target correct – and we have the correct genetic target here – there can be a substantial influence on slowing down the disease, so that’s one thing to learn for the whole ALS community.”
 

What lies ahead?

Asked to comment on the study, Richard Bedlack, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the findings are important and show “clinically meaningful” results. “Based on the new benefit-to-burden ratio, I believe most of my patients with SOD1 mutations will want to try this drug.  I would like to be able to offer it to them.  But I am curious to see what the FDA will do with these data,” said Dr. Bedlack, professor of neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke ALS Clinic.

“Sometimes that open-label extension gives us time to see differences between patients who initially got drug and those who initially got placebo. That seems to be the case with tofersen here, and it was also the case with AMX0035 [Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.], which did not show a survival benefit in the first 6 months but did in the open-label extension.” A recent FDA advisory board panel concluded there was insufficient evidence of benefit for AMX0035, he noted. “I wonder if the same concern will be raised here, necessitating confirmation in another trial. I hope not, but only time will tell.”

Dr. Miller added that these results “highlight how difficult ALS drug development still is.  Among the many uncertainties in setting up a trial (targets, doses, inclusion criteria, outcomes), we still do not know how long we need to treat patients in order to see statistically significant changes in the clinical measures we use (ALSFRS-R, respiratory function, strength, survival, etc.). Most American studies are 6 months long and most European studies are 12 months long. Longer studies may be more likely to show benefits on certain measures (e.g., survival), but they cost more, they are challenged by dropouts as the disease progresses, and the idea of randomizing someone to a placebo for a whole year is psychologically difficult for patients, families, and many clinicians (myself included). So, we are seeing more studies like this one where the first 6 months are randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled, and then there is an open-label extension that lasts many months more.”

The study was sponsored by Biogen. Writing and editorial support was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions. Tofersen was discovered by Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr. Miller disclosed ties with Biogen, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cytokinetics, C2N, Disarm Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Bedlack disclosed ties with Biogen.

An open-label extension of Biogen’s phase 3 VALOR study shows statistically significant benefits for the company’s novel antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), tofersen, in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) caused by superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene mutations.

The 1-year results, presented at the European Network for the Cure of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ENCALS) 2022 meeting, show a deceleration in functional decline that is similar, but “more pronounced” than the previously reported 6-month results, which were not statistically significant, said lead investigator Timothy Miller, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the ALS Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

“What I thought we saw in the first data cut is confirmed by what we saw in the longer data,” he said in an interview. “There were trends [showing] those treated with tofersen did a bit better, but it was hard to be sure. It was hard to be confident in what we were seeing at that early time point.”

Now, with 6 more months of data, Dr. Miller says he is confident that tofersen is slowing down the neurodegenerative disease process. “I see results that I’m encouraged by,” he said. “As a clinician who treats people with ALS with this mutation I would want this drug to be available to people that I see in my clinic.”
 

One-year VALOR study results

The primary efficacy objective of the VALOR study was to show the 28-week impact of 100 mg tofersen (three doses given about 2 weeks apart, then five doses given every 4 weeks), versus placebo, on function, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R). The open-label extension switched placebo-treated patients to tofersen (delayed-start group) and continued to compare them with the early-start group up to 1 year. This open-label extension phase included 49 patients who had been on early-start tofersen and 18 patients in the delayed-start group.

For the primary endpoint, change from baseline in 48-point ALSFRS-R score, there was a statistically significant benefit for the early-start patients with these patients scoring 3.5 points higher than the delayed-start group (P = .0272, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-6.7). This means that both groups declined in function, which is expected in ALS, but the early-start group declined more slowly.

There was also a benefit associated with early-start tofersen for a number of secondary endpoints, including change from baseline in total SOD1 cerebrospinal fluid concentration (CSF SOD1), plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and respiratory function.

“This drug targets the MRNA of SOD1, so it lowers the MRNA and then the SOD1 protein falls,” explained Dr. Miller, adding that these levels dropped 21% in the delayed start group, and 33% in the early-start group. “I think the data pretty clearly show that [tofersen] does what it is supposed to do, and that is the first step.”

Neurofilament light chain, a marker of neurodegeneration, also dropped by 41% in the delayed-start group, and 51% in the early-start group.

Respiratory function, as measured by percent predicted slow vital capacity (SVC), also declined 9.2% more slowly in the early- versus delayed-start group (P = .0159).

Finally, muscle strength, as measured by handheld dynamometry (HHD) score, declined more slowly in the early-start group compared with the late-start group, with an adjusted mean difference in score of 2.8 (P = 0.0186).

Dr. Miller said that the data show that it takes time for tofersen to impact clinical function, but there are signs of benefit before that. “I think what you see is that just starting on the drug, the first thing that happens is SOD1 goes down, the next thing is that neurofilament decreases, but clinical function is not yet changing. It takes time. What I see in these data is that it takes time for us to see that effect on clinical function.”
 

The bigger picture

While acknowledging that tofersen acts on a genetic mutation found in only about 2% of ALS, Dr. Miller said the study findings carry significance for the wider ALS patient population.

“Assuming we agree there is a clinical effect here, assuming we agree that there is real stabilization of clinical function, I think if we agree on that point then we know that ALS is now a treatable disorder. And that’s a really important point. I’m not sure that we knew that before,” he said. “Yes, there are FDA-approved medications that slow down ALS a bit, but they don’t stabilize it, and if we get the target correct – and we have the correct genetic target here – there can be a substantial influence on slowing down the disease, so that’s one thing to learn for the whole ALS community.”
 

What lies ahead?

Asked to comment on the study, Richard Bedlack, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the findings are important and show “clinically meaningful” results. “Based on the new benefit-to-burden ratio, I believe most of my patients with SOD1 mutations will want to try this drug.  I would like to be able to offer it to them.  But I am curious to see what the FDA will do with these data,” said Dr. Bedlack, professor of neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke ALS Clinic.

“Sometimes that open-label extension gives us time to see differences between patients who initially got drug and those who initially got placebo. That seems to be the case with tofersen here, and it was also the case with AMX0035 [Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.], which did not show a survival benefit in the first 6 months but did in the open-label extension.” A recent FDA advisory board panel concluded there was insufficient evidence of benefit for AMX0035, he noted. “I wonder if the same concern will be raised here, necessitating confirmation in another trial. I hope not, but only time will tell.”

Dr. Miller added that these results “highlight how difficult ALS drug development still is.  Among the many uncertainties in setting up a trial (targets, doses, inclusion criteria, outcomes), we still do not know how long we need to treat patients in order to see statistically significant changes in the clinical measures we use (ALSFRS-R, respiratory function, strength, survival, etc.). Most American studies are 6 months long and most European studies are 12 months long. Longer studies may be more likely to show benefits on certain measures (e.g., survival), but they cost more, they are challenged by dropouts as the disease progresses, and the idea of randomizing someone to a placebo for a whole year is psychologically difficult for patients, families, and many clinicians (myself included). So, we are seeing more studies like this one where the first 6 months are randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled, and then there is an open-label extension that lasts many months more.”

The study was sponsored by Biogen. Writing and editorial support was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions. Tofersen was discovered by Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr. Miller disclosed ties with Biogen, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cytokinetics, C2N, Disarm Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Bedlack disclosed ties with Biogen.

An open-label extension of Biogen’s phase 3 VALOR study shows statistically significant benefits for the company’s novel antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), tofersen, in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) caused by superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene mutations.

The 1-year results, presented at the European Network for the Cure of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ENCALS) 2022 meeting, show a deceleration in functional decline that is similar, but “more pronounced” than the previously reported 6-month results, which were not statistically significant, said lead investigator Timothy Miller, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the ALS Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

“What I thought we saw in the first data cut is confirmed by what we saw in the longer data,” he said in an interview. “There were trends [showing] those treated with tofersen did a bit better, but it was hard to be sure. It was hard to be confident in what we were seeing at that early time point.”

Now, with 6 more months of data, Dr. Miller says he is confident that tofersen is slowing down the neurodegenerative disease process. “I see results that I’m encouraged by,” he said. “As a clinician who treats people with ALS with this mutation I would want this drug to be available to people that I see in my clinic.”
 

One-year VALOR study results

The primary efficacy objective of the VALOR study was to show the 28-week impact of 100 mg tofersen (three doses given about 2 weeks apart, then five doses given every 4 weeks), versus placebo, on function, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R). The open-label extension switched placebo-treated patients to tofersen (delayed-start group) and continued to compare them with the early-start group up to 1 year. This open-label extension phase included 49 patients who had been on early-start tofersen and 18 patients in the delayed-start group.

For the primary endpoint, change from baseline in 48-point ALSFRS-R score, there was a statistically significant benefit for the early-start patients with these patients scoring 3.5 points higher than the delayed-start group (P = .0272, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-6.7). This means that both groups declined in function, which is expected in ALS, but the early-start group declined more slowly.

There was also a benefit associated with early-start tofersen for a number of secondary endpoints, including change from baseline in total SOD1 cerebrospinal fluid concentration (CSF SOD1), plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and respiratory function.

“This drug targets the MRNA of SOD1, so it lowers the MRNA and then the SOD1 protein falls,” explained Dr. Miller, adding that these levels dropped 21% in the delayed start group, and 33% in the early-start group. “I think the data pretty clearly show that [tofersen] does what it is supposed to do, and that is the first step.”

Neurofilament light chain, a marker of neurodegeneration, also dropped by 41% in the delayed-start group, and 51% in the early-start group.

Respiratory function, as measured by percent predicted slow vital capacity (SVC), also declined 9.2% more slowly in the early- versus delayed-start group (P = .0159).

Finally, muscle strength, as measured by handheld dynamometry (HHD) score, declined more slowly in the early-start group compared with the late-start group, with an adjusted mean difference in score of 2.8 (P = 0.0186).

Dr. Miller said that the data show that it takes time for tofersen to impact clinical function, but there are signs of benefit before that. “I think what you see is that just starting on the drug, the first thing that happens is SOD1 goes down, the next thing is that neurofilament decreases, but clinical function is not yet changing. It takes time. What I see in these data is that it takes time for us to see that effect on clinical function.”
 

The bigger picture

While acknowledging that tofersen acts on a genetic mutation found in only about 2% of ALS, Dr. Miller said the study findings carry significance for the wider ALS patient population.

“Assuming we agree there is a clinical effect here, assuming we agree that there is real stabilization of clinical function, I think if we agree on that point then we know that ALS is now a treatable disorder. And that’s a really important point. I’m not sure that we knew that before,” he said. “Yes, there are FDA-approved medications that slow down ALS a bit, but they don’t stabilize it, and if we get the target correct – and we have the correct genetic target here – there can be a substantial influence on slowing down the disease, so that’s one thing to learn for the whole ALS community.”
 

What lies ahead?

Asked to comment on the study, Richard Bedlack, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, said the findings are important and show “clinically meaningful” results. “Based on the new benefit-to-burden ratio, I believe most of my patients with SOD1 mutations will want to try this drug.  I would like to be able to offer it to them.  But I am curious to see what the FDA will do with these data,” said Dr. Bedlack, professor of neurology at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke ALS Clinic.

“Sometimes that open-label extension gives us time to see differences between patients who initially got drug and those who initially got placebo. That seems to be the case with tofersen here, and it was also the case with AMX0035 [Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.], which did not show a survival benefit in the first 6 months but did in the open-label extension.” A recent FDA advisory board panel concluded there was insufficient evidence of benefit for AMX0035, he noted. “I wonder if the same concern will be raised here, necessitating confirmation in another trial. I hope not, but only time will tell.”

Dr. Miller added that these results “highlight how difficult ALS drug development still is.  Among the many uncertainties in setting up a trial (targets, doses, inclusion criteria, outcomes), we still do not know how long we need to treat patients in order to see statistically significant changes in the clinical measures we use (ALSFRS-R, respiratory function, strength, survival, etc.). Most American studies are 6 months long and most European studies are 12 months long. Longer studies may be more likely to show benefits on certain measures (e.g., survival), but they cost more, they are challenged by dropouts as the disease progresses, and the idea of randomizing someone to a placebo for a whole year is psychologically difficult for patients, families, and many clinicians (myself included). So, we are seeing more studies like this one where the first 6 months are randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled, and then there is an open-label extension that lasts many months more.”

The study was sponsored by Biogen. Writing and editorial support was provided by Excel Scientific Solutions. Tofersen was discovered by Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr. Miller disclosed ties with Biogen, Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cytokinetics, C2N, Disarm Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Bedlack disclosed ties with Biogen.

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – Monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulators, and pulmonary arterial vasodilators top the list of drugs that were most frequently implicated as causes of headaches in a federal side effect database that anyone can contribute to, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Surprising findings included the significant number of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators present in the data,” study lead author Brett Musialowicz, a medical student at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswich, N.J., said in an interview. “Additionally, our data provides evidence that suggests that several medications belonging to these drug classes were less likely to be associated with medication-induced headaches,” raising questions about the mechanism.

Drugs most frequently linked to headaches

The researchers launched their study to better understand headache as a side effect of medication use, Mr. Musialowicz said. They analyzed entries from the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System for the period from July 2018 to March 2020 and listed the top 30 most commonly reported medications linked to headaches and their reported odds ratio. According to a website devoted to pharmacovigilance training, ROR refers to “the odds of a certain event occurring with your medicinal product, compared with the odds of the same event occurring with all other medicinal products in the database.”

After generic and brand name data was consolidated, the drug most frequently linked to headaches was apremilast with 8,672 reports, followed by adalimumab (5,357), tofacitinib (4,276), fingolimod (4,123), and etanercept (4,111). These drugs treat autoimmune disorders such as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn’s disease.

The other drugs in the top 15 ranked by frequency are treatments for hepatitis C (4 drugs), pulmonary arterial hypertension (4 drugs), arthritis (1 drug), and asthma (1 drug).

Of the top 30 drugs most frequently linked to headaches, the pulmonary hypertension drug epoprostenol – ranked 23rd – had the highest ROR at 12.8. The next highest were the hepatitis C drugs glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, tied at 10th in the frequency analysis and both with an ROR of 9.4.

“Pulmonary arterial dilators and vasodilators are believed to cause headaches by sensitizing extracranial arteries. Clinical evidence suggests there a vascular component to some types of headache,” Mr. Musialowicz said. “Monoclonal antibodies are suggested to cause headache by means of an immune response. Several monoclonal antibodies are in trials targeting [the calcitonin gene-related peptide] receptor, which is believed to be involved in migraine headache. These trials will help further elucidate the mechanisms of headache and potential drugs to treat these conditions.”
 

Is the data useful?

Stewart Tepper, MD, a neurologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., who’s familiar with the study findings, discounted the new research in an interview. He noted that any member of the public can contribute to the federal database of adverse effects (drug manufacturers are required to contribute to it), and the data says nothing about denominators.

“It’s not a reasonable way to evaluate adverse effects, to just have everyone and their uncle saying ‘This particular drug did this to me.’ It’s not in any way useful,” he said. However, he added that the database sometimes “gives you a bit of a signal so you can go back and try to get scientifically collected data.”

When asked to respond, study coauthor and neurologist Pengfei (Phil) Zhang, MD, of Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, noted that the FDA created the database “for a reason.” He also noted that the researchers used a statistical analysis technique – ROR – that was invented to adjust for weaknesses in databases.

No study funding is reported. Mr. Musialowicz reported no disclosures. Dr. Zhang has received honorarium from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Board Vitals, and Fieve Clinical Research. He collaborates with Headache Science Incorporated without receiving financial support, and he has ownership interest in Cymbeline. Another author reports research grant support from the American Epilepsy Society and the New Jersey Health Foundation. Dr. Tepper reported multiple disclosures.
 

DENVER – In line with recommendations, emergency departments dramatically reduced their use of opioids as treatments for headache over a recent 11-year period, a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.

From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.

“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.

Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
 

Headache treatment in the ED

For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.

For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).

In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.

Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.

Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).

“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”

Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”

As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
 

Evidence-based treatments underutilized

Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”

As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
 

Overuse of neuroimaging

Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”

For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”

The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.

DENVER – In line with recommendations, emergency departments dramatically reduced their use of opioids as treatments for headache over a recent 11-year period, a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.

From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.

“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.

Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
 

Headache treatment in the ED

For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.

For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).

In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.

Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.

Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).

“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”

Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”

As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
 

Evidence-based treatments underutilized

Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”

As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
 

Overuse of neuroimaging

Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”

For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”

The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.

DENVER – In line with recommendations, emergency departments dramatically reduced their use of opioids as treatments for headache over a recent 11-year period, a new study finds. But the use of diphenhydramine (Benadryl) more than doubled even though guidelines caution against it, while recommended drugs such triptans and corticosteroids were rarely prescribed.

From 2007-2010 to 2015-2018, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society, a database reveals that opioid use in headache cases at EDs fell from 54% to 28%. Diphenhydramine use grew from 17% to 36% (both (P < .001). The percentage of cases in which EDs sought neuroimaging stayed stable at about 36%, a number that the study authors described as too high.

“Future studies are warranted to identify strategies to promote evidence-based treatments for headaches and appropriate outpatient referrals for follow-up and to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging orders in EDs,” lead author Seonkyeong Yang, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview.

Ms. Yang said researchers launched the study to update previous data in light of changes in opioid prescribing and the 2016 release of American Headache Society guidelines for the treatment of acute migraines in the ED setting. The research was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.
 

Headache treatment in the ED

For the study, researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care survey and focused on adults who had a primary discharge diagnosis of headache.

For the 2015-2018 period, per weighted numbers, the survey encompassed 10.2 million headaches mostly among people younger than 50 (71%), female (73%), and White (73%). Migraines made up 33% of the total, with nonspecified headache accounting for almost all of the remainder (63%).

In 68% of cases, two or more medications were administered in the ED. This number rose to 83% among patients with migraine. But most of the time (54%), no medications were prescribed at discharge.

Among recommended medications, antiemetics – the most commonly used class of drugs in these patients – were prescribed 59% of the time in both 2007-2010 and 2015-2018 (P = .88). Usage of acetaminophens and NSAIDs grew from 37% to 52% over that time period.

Despite recommendations, the use of ergot alkaloids/triptans and corticosteroids remained low (less than 6% of the time).

“Several factors may contribute to the underuse of triptans in EDs, including their cardiovascular contraindications, ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with injectable triptans, higher costs, and treatment failures with triptans before ED visits,” Ms. Yang said. “We observed an upward trend in dexamethasone use over time. However, it was still underutilized. [The corticosteroid was only used 3.5% of the time from 2015-2018.] The 2016 AHS guideline strongly recommends dexamethasone use to prevent migraine recurrence after ED discharge. Identifying patients at high risk of headache recurrence for dexamethasone use may further improve patient outcomes of acute headache management in ED settings.”

Ms. Yang also reported that the use of diphenhydramine grew even though it’s not recommended. “Diphenhydramine is more likely to be used to prevent akathisia, a side effect of some antiemetics [that is, dopamine receptor antagonists] in headache-related ED visits,” she said. “However, the 2016 AHS guideline recommends against diphenhydramine use due to its limited efficacy in relieving headache pain. In addition, there is also conflicting evidence on diphenhydramine’s efficacy in preventing akathisia when coadministered with antiemetics. Diphenhydramine use requires caution due to its sedative effect and abuse potential.”

As for medication combinations, Ms. Yang said “the most broadly used therapy among headache-related ED visits in 2007-2010 was an opioid with an antiemetic (21.0%), which decreased to 6.6% in 2015-2018. Meanwhile, the combined use of acetaminophen/NSAIDs with antiemetic and diphenhydramine increased substantially from 3.9% to 15.7% and became the most prevalent therapy in 2015-2018. Opioid monotherapy use gradually decreased during the study period [from 8.8% to 1.9%].”
 

Evidence-based treatments underutilized

Commenting on the findings, New York University Langone neurologist and headache researcher Mia Tova Minen, MD, MPH, noted in an interview that AHS guidelines do not indicate acetaminophen/NSAIDs, diphenhydramine, and corticosteroids for the acute treatment of migraine. “The recommended treatments are sumatriptan subcutaneous, IV metoclopramide, and IV prochlorperazine. Steroids can be helpful in the prevention of migraine recurrence but not for the acute treatment of the migraine itself,” she said. “We need to ensure that patients with migraine get the top evidence-based treatments for migraine.”

As for diphenhydramine, she said it “is not a treatment for headache disorders. It does not have proven efficacy. It is sometimes given to reduce side effects of more acute treatments of headache, but it can make patients fatigued and keep them in the ED longer.”
 

Overuse of neuroimaging

Ms. Yang also highlighted study data about the frequency of neuroimaging. “Understandably, ED physicians do not want to miss any life-threatening secondary headaches like stroke,” she said. “However, other factors also contribute to the overuse of neuroimaging in headache-related ED visits: patient demands, financial incentives, a busy ED practice where clinical evaluation is replaced by tests, and ED physicians’ unfamiliarity with ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for primary headache disorders. There is still much room for improvement in neuroimaging use for headaches in ED settings.”

For her part, Dr. Minen said scans are often performed reflexively and can be overused. “A CT scan is really only good in the case of acute trauma to rule out a fracture or a bleed or if there are signs of an emergent neurologic emergency like herniation or if a MRI is contraindicated. An MRI of the brain is typically the best test to examine brain tissue, though sometimes vessel imaging is also warranted. In the case of no red flags and a normal neurologic exam, the use of neuroimaging is low yield.”

The research has no funding. Ms. Yang and two other authors disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Minen reports no disclosures.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

Providing peer or community health workers to help psychiatric patients complete psychiatric advance directives (PAD) – which govern care in advance of a mental health crisis – is associated with a significant reduction in compulsory hospital admissions, new research shows.

Results of a randomized trial showed the peer worker PAD group had a 42% reduction in compulsory admission over the following 12 months. This study group also had lower symptom scores, greater rates of recovery, and increased empowerment, compared with patients assigned to usual care.

In addition to proving that PADs are effective in reducing compulsory admission, the results show that facilitation by peer workers is relevant, study investigator Aurélie Tinland, MD, PhD, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2022 Congress. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

However, Dr. Tinland noted that more research that includes “harder to reach” populations is needed. In addition, greater use of PADs is also key to reducing compulsory admissions.
 

‘Most coercive’ country

The researchers note that respect for patient autonomy is a strong pillar of health care, such that “involuntary treatment should be unusual.” However, they point out that “compulsory psychiatric admissions are far too common in countries of all income levels.”

In France, said Dr. Tinland, 24% of psychiatric hospitalizations are compulsory. The country is ranked the sixth “most coercive” country in the world, and there are concerns about human rights in French psychiatric facilities.

She added that advance care statements are the most efficient tool for reducing coercion, with one study suggesting they could cut rates by 25%, compared with usual care.

However, she noted there is an “asymmetry” between medical professionals and patients and a risk of “undue influence” when clinicians facilitate the completion of care statements.

To examine the impact on clinical outcomes of peer-worker facilitated PADs, the researchers studied adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, or schizoaffective disorder who were admitted to a psychiatric hospital within the previous 12 months. Peer workers are individuals who have lived experience with mental illness and help inform and guide current patients about care options in the event of a mental health crisis.

Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention group or a usual care control group. The intervention group received a PAD document and were assigned a peer worker while the usual care group received comprehensive information about the PAD concept at study entry and were free to complete it, but they were not connected with a peer worker.

The PAD document included information about future treatment and support preferences, early signs of relapse, and coping strategies. Participants could meet the peer worker in a place of their choice and be supported in drafting the document and in sharing it with health care professionals.

In all, 394 individuals completed the study. The majority (61%) of participants were male and 66% had completed post-secondary education. Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 45%, bipolar I disorder in 36%, and schizoaffective disorder in 19%.

Participants in the intervention group were significantly younger than those in the control group, with a mean of 37.4 years versus 41 years (P = .003) and were less likely to have one or more somatic comorbidities, at 61.2% versus 69.2%.

A PAD was completed by 54.6% of individuals in the intervention group versus 7.1% of controls (P < .001). The PAD was written with peer worker support by 41.3% of those in the intervention and by 2% of controls. Of those who completed a PAD, 75.7% met care facilitators, and 27.1% used it during a crisis over the following 12 months.

Results showed that the rate of compulsory admissions was significantly lower in the peer worker PAD group, at 27% versus 39.9% in control participants, at an odds ratio of 0.58 (P = .007).

Participants in the intervention group had lower symptoms on the modified Colorado Symptom Score than usual care patients with an effect size of -0.20 (P = .03) and higher scores on the Empowerment Scale (effect size 0.30, P = .003).

Scores on the Recovery Assessment Scale were also significantly higher in the peer worker PAD group versus controls with an effect size of 0.44 (P < .001). There were no significant differences, however, in overall admission rates, the quality of the therapeutic alliance, or quality of life.
 

Putting patients in the driver’s seat

Commenting on the findings, Robert Dabney Jr., MA, MDiv, peer apprentice program manager at the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Chicago, said the study “tells us there are many benefits to completing a psychiatric advance directive, but perhaps the most powerful one is putting the person receiving mental health care in the driver’s seat of their own recovery.”

However, he noted that “many people living with mental health conditions don’t know the option exists to decide on their treatment plan in advance of a crisis.”

“This is where peer support specialists can come in. Having a peer who has been through similar experiences and can guide you through the process is as comforting as it is empowering. I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the power of peer support,” he said.

“It’s my personal hope and the goal of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance to empower more people to either become peer support specialists or seek out peer support services, because we know it improves and even saves lives,” Mr. Dabney added.

Virginia A. Brown, PhD, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, noted there are huge differences between the health care systems in France and the United States.

She explained that two of the greatest barriers to PADs in the United States is that until 2016, filling one out was not billable and that “practitioners don’t know anything about advanced care plans.”

Dr. Brown said her own work shows that individuals who support patients during a crisis believe it would be “really helpful if we had some kind of document that we could share with the health care system that says: ‘Hey, look, I’m the designated person to speak for this patient, they’ve identified me through a document.’ So, people were actually describing a need for this document but didn’t know that it existed.”

Another problem is that in the United States, hospitals operate in a “closed system” and cannot talk to an unrelated hospital or to the police department “to get information to those first responders during an emergency about who to talk to about their wishes and preferences.”

“There are a lot of hurdles that we’ve got to get over to make a more robust system that protects the autonomy of people who live with serious mental illness,” Dr. Brown said, as “losing capacity during a crisis is time-limited, and it requires us to respond to it as a medical emergency.”

The study was supported by an institutional grant from the French 2017 National Program of Health Services Research. The Clinical Research Direction of Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille sponsored the trial. Dr. Tinland declares grants from the French Ministry of Health Directorate General of Health Care Services during the conduct of the study.

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

Providing peer or community health workers to help psychiatric patients complete psychiatric advance directives (PAD) – which govern care in advance of a mental health crisis – is associated with a significant reduction in compulsory hospital admissions, new research shows.

Results of a randomized trial showed the peer worker PAD group had a 42% reduction in compulsory admission over the following 12 months. This study group also had lower symptom scores, greater rates of recovery, and increased empowerment, compared with patients assigned to usual care.

In addition to proving that PADs are effective in reducing compulsory admission, the results show that facilitation by peer workers is relevant, study investigator Aurélie Tinland, MD, PhD, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2022 Congress. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

However, Dr. Tinland noted that more research that includes “harder to reach” populations is needed. In addition, greater use of PADs is also key to reducing compulsory admissions.
 

‘Most coercive’ country

The researchers note that respect for patient autonomy is a strong pillar of health care, such that “involuntary treatment should be unusual.” However, they point out that “compulsory psychiatric admissions are far too common in countries of all income levels.”

In France, said Dr. Tinland, 24% of psychiatric hospitalizations are compulsory. The country is ranked the sixth “most coercive” country in the world, and there are concerns about human rights in French psychiatric facilities.

She added that advance care statements are the most efficient tool for reducing coercion, with one study suggesting they could cut rates by 25%, compared with usual care.

However, she noted there is an “asymmetry” between medical professionals and patients and a risk of “undue influence” when clinicians facilitate the completion of care statements.

To examine the impact on clinical outcomes of peer-worker facilitated PADs, the researchers studied adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, or schizoaffective disorder who were admitted to a psychiatric hospital within the previous 12 months. Peer workers are individuals who have lived experience with mental illness and help inform and guide current patients about care options in the event of a mental health crisis.

Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention group or a usual care control group. The intervention group received a PAD document and were assigned a peer worker while the usual care group received comprehensive information about the PAD concept at study entry and were free to complete it, but they were not connected with a peer worker.

The PAD document included information about future treatment and support preferences, early signs of relapse, and coping strategies. Participants could meet the peer worker in a place of their choice and be supported in drafting the document and in sharing it with health care professionals.

In all, 394 individuals completed the study. The majority (61%) of participants were male and 66% had completed post-secondary education. Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 45%, bipolar I disorder in 36%, and schizoaffective disorder in 19%.

Participants in the intervention group were significantly younger than those in the control group, with a mean of 37.4 years versus 41 years (P = .003) and were less likely to have one or more somatic comorbidities, at 61.2% versus 69.2%.

A PAD was completed by 54.6% of individuals in the intervention group versus 7.1% of controls (P < .001). The PAD was written with peer worker support by 41.3% of those in the intervention and by 2% of controls. Of those who completed a PAD, 75.7% met care facilitators, and 27.1% used it during a crisis over the following 12 months.

Results showed that the rate of compulsory admissions was significantly lower in the peer worker PAD group, at 27% versus 39.9% in control participants, at an odds ratio of 0.58 (P = .007).

Participants in the intervention group had lower symptoms on the modified Colorado Symptom Score than usual care patients with an effect size of -0.20 (P = .03) and higher scores on the Empowerment Scale (effect size 0.30, P = .003).

Scores on the Recovery Assessment Scale were also significantly higher in the peer worker PAD group versus controls with an effect size of 0.44 (P < .001). There were no significant differences, however, in overall admission rates, the quality of the therapeutic alliance, or quality of life.
 

Putting patients in the driver’s seat

Commenting on the findings, Robert Dabney Jr., MA, MDiv, peer apprentice program manager at the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Chicago, said the study “tells us there are many benefits to completing a psychiatric advance directive, but perhaps the most powerful one is putting the person receiving mental health care in the driver’s seat of their own recovery.”

However, he noted that “many people living with mental health conditions don’t know the option exists to decide on their treatment plan in advance of a crisis.”

“This is where peer support specialists can come in. Having a peer who has been through similar experiences and can guide you through the process is as comforting as it is empowering. I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the power of peer support,” he said.

“It’s my personal hope and the goal of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance to empower more people to either become peer support specialists or seek out peer support services, because we know it improves and even saves lives,” Mr. Dabney added.

Virginia A. Brown, PhD, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, noted there are huge differences between the health care systems in France and the United States.

She explained that two of the greatest barriers to PADs in the United States is that until 2016, filling one out was not billable and that “practitioners don’t know anything about advanced care plans.”

Dr. Brown said her own work shows that individuals who support patients during a crisis believe it would be “really helpful if we had some kind of document that we could share with the health care system that says: ‘Hey, look, I’m the designated person to speak for this patient, they’ve identified me through a document.’ So, people were actually describing a need for this document but didn’t know that it existed.”

Another problem is that in the United States, hospitals operate in a “closed system” and cannot talk to an unrelated hospital or to the police department “to get information to those first responders during an emergency about who to talk to about their wishes and preferences.”

“There are a lot of hurdles that we’ve got to get over to make a more robust system that protects the autonomy of people who live with serious mental illness,” Dr. Brown said, as “losing capacity during a crisis is time-limited, and it requires us to respond to it as a medical emergency.”

The study was supported by an institutional grant from the French 2017 National Program of Health Services Research. The Clinical Research Direction of Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille sponsored the trial. Dr. Tinland declares grants from the French Ministry of Health Directorate General of Health Care Services during the conduct of the study.

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

Providing peer or community health workers to help psychiatric patients complete psychiatric advance directives (PAD) – which govern care in advance of a mental health crisis – is associated with a significant reduction in compulsory hospital admissions, new research shows.

Results of a randomized trial showed the peer worker PAD group had a 42% reduction in compulsory admission over the following 12 months. This study group also had lower symptom scores, greater rates of recovery, and increased empowerment, compared with patients assigned to usual care.

In addition to proving that PADs are effective in reducing compulsory admission, the results show that facilitation by peer workers is relevant, study investigator Aurélie Tinland, MD, PhD, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2022 Congress. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

However, Dr. Tinland noted that more research that includes “harder to reach” populations is needed. In addition, greater use of PADs is also key to reducing compulsory admissions.
 

‘Most coercive’ country

The researchers note that respect for patient autonomy is a strong pillar of health care, such that “involuntary treatment should be unusual.” However, they point out that “compulsory psychiatric admissions are far too common in countries of all income levels.”

In France, said Dr. Tinland, 24% of psychiatric hospitalizations are compulsory. The country is ranked the sixth “most coercive” country in the world, and there are concerns about human rights in French psychiatric facilities.

She added that advance care statements are the most efficient tool for reducing coercion, with one study suggesting they could cut rates by 25%, compared with usual care.

However, she noted there is an “asymmetry” between medical professionals and patients and a risk of “undue influence” when clinicians facilitate the completion of care statements.

To examine the impact on clinical outcomes of peer-worker facilitated PADs, the researchers studied adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, or schizoaffective disorder who were admitted to a psychiatric hospital within the previous 12 months. Peer workers are individuals who have lived experience with mental illness and help inform and guide current patients about care options in the event of a mental health crisis.

Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention group or a usual care control group. The intervention group received a PAD document and were assigned a peer worker while the usual care group received comprehensive information about the PAD concept at study entry and were free to complete it, but they were not connected with a peer worker.

The PAD document included information about future treatment and support preferences, early signs of relapse, and coping strategies. Participants could meet the peer worker in a place of their choice and be supported in drafting the document and in sharing it with health care professionals.

In all, 394 individuals completed the study. The majority (61%) of participants were male and 66% had completed post-secondary education. Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 45%, bipolar I disorder in 36%, and schizoaffective disorder in 19%.

Participants in the intervention group were significantly younger than those in the control group, with a mean of 37.4 years versus 41 years (P = .003) and were less likely to have one or more somatic comorbidities, at 61.2% versus 69.2%.

A PAD was completed by 54.6% of individuals in the intervention group versus 7.1% of controls (P < .001). The PAD was written with peer worker support by 41.3% of those in the intervention and by 2% of controls. Of those who completed a PAD, 75.7% met care facilitators, and 27.1% used it during a crisis over the following 12 months.

Results showed that the rate of compulsory admissions was significantly lower in the peer worker PAD group, at 27% versus 39.9% in control participants, at an odds ratio of 0.58 (P = .007).

Participants in the intervention group had lower symptoms on the modified Colorado Symptom Score than usual care patients with an effect size of -0.20 (P = .03) and higher scores on the Empowerment Scale (effect size 0.30, P = .003).

Scores on the Recovery Assessment Scale were also significantly higher in the peer worker PAD group versus controls with an effect size of 0.44 (P < .001). There were no significant differences, however, in overall admission rates, the quality of the therapeutic alliance, or quality of life.
 

Putting patients in the driver’s seat

Commenting on the findings, Robert Dabney Jr., MA, MDiv, peer apprentice program manager at the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Chicago, said the study “tells us there are many benefits to completing a psychiatric advance directive, but perhaps the most powerful one is putting the person receiving mental health care in the driver’s seat of their own recovery.”

However, he noted that “many people living with mental health conditions don’t know the option exists to decide on their treatment plan in advance of a crisis.”

“This is where peer support specialists can come in. Having a peer who has been through similar experiences and can guide you through the process is as comforting as it is empowering. I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the power of peer support,” he said.

“It’s my personal hope and the goal of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance to empower more people to either become peer support specialists or seek out peer support services, because we know it improves and even saves lives,” Mr. Dabney added.

Virginia A. Brown, PhD, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, noted there are huge differences between the health care systems in France and the United States.

She explained that two of the greatest barriers to PADs in the United States is that until 2016, filling one out was not billable and that “practitioners don’t know anything about advanced care plans.”

Dr. Brown said her own work shows that individuals who support patients during a crisis believe it would be “really helpful if we had some kind of document that we could share with the health care system that says: ‘Hey, look, I’m the designated person to speak for this patient, they’ve identified me through a document.’ So, people were actually describing a need for this document but didn’t know that it existed.”

Another problem is that in the United States, hospitals operate in a “closed system” and cannot talk to an unrelated hospital or to the police department “to get information to those first responders during an emergency about who to talk to about their wishes and preferences.”

“There are a lot of hurdles that we’ve got to get over to make a more robust system that protects the autonomy of people who live with serious mental illness,” Dr. Brown said, as “losing capacity during a crisis is time-limited, and it requires us to respond to it as a medical emergency.”

The study was supported by an institutional grant from the French 2017 National Program of Health Services Research. The Clinical Research Direction of Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille sponsored the trial. Dr. Tinland declares grants from the French Ministry of Health Directorate General of Health Care Services during the conduct of the study.

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