User login
Metabolic Dysfunction–Associated Steatotic Liver Disease Plus HIV Ups Risk for CVD but Not Liver Disease
TOPLINE:
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) co-occurring with HIV infection does not appear to increase the risk for cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with MASLD alone. However, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is significantly increased among patients with MASLD and HIV, a large study suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- MASLD is highly prevalent in people living with HIV, but the impact of HIV on liver and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in people with MASLD remains unclear.
- To investigate, researchers created a propensity score-matched cohort of veterans with noncirrhotic MASLD, with and without HIV (920 patients in each group).
- They evaluated the incidence of cirrhosis, HCC, and MACE, as well as overall survival, among the two groups. They also assessed these outcomes in MASLD patients with HIV on the basis of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy (ART).
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 10.4 years in the MASLD with HIV group and 11.8 years in the MASLD-only group, the overall incidence of cirrhosis and HCC was similar in MASLD with vs without HIV (cirrhosis: 0.97 vs 1.06 per 100 person-years, P = .54; HCC: 0.26 vs 0.17 per 100,000 person-years, P = .23), regardless of ART use.
- In contrast, the incidence of MACE was significantly higher in MASLD with vs without HIV (5.18 vs 4.48 per 100 person-years, P = .03). The incidence also was higher in patients with MASLD and HIV who were not on ART compared with those on ART (5.83 vs 4.7 per 100 person-years, P = .07).
- Compared with MASLD without HIV, the overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in MASLD with HIV (91.3% vs 85.7%). In MASLD with HIV, receipt of ART was associated with a significantly higher 5-year survival than no ART (87.4% vs 81.6%).
IN PRACTICE:
“Ensuring timely and appropriate initiation of HIV treatment is critical in patients with MASLD who have concurrent HIV infection, as well as optimizing metabolic comorbidities that may also contribute to increased risks of CVD and increased mortality,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Robert J. Wong, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study cohort consisted predominantly of older men, which may limit generalizability to women and younger populations. Metabolic comorbidities are more common in veterans compared with the general population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the CVD risk findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Theratechnologies. Wong has received funding for his institution from Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences, and Durect Corporation and has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) co-occurring with HIV infection does not appear to increase the risk for cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with MASLD alone. However, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is significantly increased among patients with MASLD and HIV, a large study suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- MASLD is highly prevalent in people living with HIV, but the impact of HIV on liver and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in people with MASLD remains unclear.
- To investigate, researchers created a propensity score-matched cohort of veterans with noncirrhotic MASLD, with and without HIV (920 patients in each group).
- They evaluated the incidence of cirrhosis, HCC, and MACE, as well as overall survival, among the two groups. They also assessed these outcomes in MASLD patients with HIV on the basis of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy (ART).
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 10.4 years in the MASLD with HIV group and 11.8 years in the MASLD-only group, the overall incidence of cirrhosis and HCC was similar in MASLD with vs without HIV (cirrhosis: 0.97 vs 1.06 per 100 person-years, P = .54; HCC: 0.26 vs 0.17 per 100,000 person-years, P = .23), regardless of ART use.
- In contrast, the incidence of MACE was significantly higher in MASLD with vs without HIV (5.18 vs 4.48 per 100 person-years, P = .03). The incidence also was higher in patients with MASLD and HIV who were not on ART compared with those on ART (5.83 vs 4.7 per 100 person-years, P = .07).
- Compared with MASLD without HIV, the overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in MASLD with HIV (91.3% vs 85.7%). In MASLD with HIV, receipt of ART was associated with a significantly higher 5-year survival than no ART (87.4% vs 81.6%).
IN PRACTICE:
“Ensuring timely and appropriate initiation of HIV treatment is critical in patients with MASLD who have concurrent HIV infection, as well as optimizing metabolic comorbidities that may also contribute to increased risks of CVD and increased mortality,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Robert J. Wong, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study cohort consisted predominantly of older men, which may limit generalizability to women and younger populations. Metabolic comorbidities are more common in veterans compared with the general population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the CVD risk findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Theratechnologies. Wong has received funding for his institution from Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences, and Durect Corporation and has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) co-occurring with HIV infection does not appear to increase the risk for cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with MASLD alone. However, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is significantly increased among patients with MASLD and HIV, a large study suggested.
METHODOLOGY:
- MASLD is highly prevalent in people living with HIV, but the impact of HIV on liver and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in people with MASLD remains unclear.
- To investigate, researchers created a propensity score-matched cohort of veterans with noncirrhotic MASLD, with and without HIV (920 patients in each group).
- They evaluated the incidence of cirrhosis, HCC, and MACE, as well as overall survival, among the two groups. They also assessed these outcomes in MASLD patients with HIV on the basis of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy (ART).
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 10.4 years in the MASLD with HIV group and 11.8 years in the MASLD-only group, the overall incidence of cirrhosis and HCC was similar in MASLD with vs without HIV (cirrhosis: 0.97 vs 1.06 per 100 person-years, P = .54; HCC: 0.26 vs 0.17 per 100,000 person-years, P = .23), regardless of ART use.
- In contrast, the incidence of MACE was significantly higher in MASLD with vs without HIV (5.18 vs 4.48 per 100 person-years, P = .03). The incidence also was higher in patients with MASLD and HIV who were not on ART compared with those on ART (5.83 vs 4.7 per 100 person-years, P = .07).
- Compared with MASLD without HIV, the overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in MASLD with HIV (91.3% vs 85.7%). In MASLD with HIV, receipt of ART was associated with a significantly higher 5-year survival than no ART (87.4% vs 81.6%).
IN PRACTICE:
“Ensuring timely and appropriate initiation of HIV treatment is critical in patients with MASLD who have concurrent HIV infection, as well as optimizing metabolic comorbidities that may also contribute to increased risks of CVD and increased mortality,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Robert J. Wong, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study cohort consisted predominantly of older men, which may limit generalizability to women and younger populations. Metabolic comorbidities are more common in veterans compared with the general population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the CVD risk findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Theratechnologies. Wong has received funding for his institution from Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences, and Durect Corporation and has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Novel Agent Curbs Alzheimer’s-Related Agitation
DENVER —
More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo.
“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Common and Disruptive
Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.
A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo.
ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation.
In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.
A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.
In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).
“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported.
AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).
Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).
Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.
One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation.
Promising Agent
Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.
“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.
He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions.
“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained.
The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.
“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said.
“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added.
Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.
The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.
“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association.
Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER —
More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo.
“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Common and Disruptive
Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.
A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo.
ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation.
In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.
A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.
In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).
“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported.
AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).
Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).
Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.
One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation.
Promising Agent
Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.
“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.
He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions.
“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained.
The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.
“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said.
“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added.
Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.
The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.
“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association.
Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER —
More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo.
“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York.
The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Common and Disruptive
Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.
A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo.
ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation.
In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.
A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.
In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).
“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported.
AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).
Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).
Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.
One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation.
Promising Agent
Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.
“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.
He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions.
“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained.
The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist.
“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said.
“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added.
Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.
The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.
“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association.
Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
FDA OKs Subcutaneous Vedolizumab for Crohn’s Maintenance Therapy
The move follows the FDA’s approval last year of subcutaneous vedolizumab for maintenance treatment of adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).
The humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody is available as a single-dose prefilled pen (Entyvio Pen).
The FDA first approved the IV formulation of the biologic in 2014 for patients with moderate to severe UC and CD who cannot tolerate other therapies or in whom such therapies have failed.
The approval of subcutaneous vedolizumab for maintenance treatment of CD is based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled VISIBLE 2 trial.
The trial enrolled 409 adult patients with moderately to severely active CD who had clinical response at week 6 following two doses of open-label IV vedolizumab at weeks 0 and 2.
At week 6, they were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to receive vedolizumab 108 mg administered by subcutaneous injection or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, which was defined as a total Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score ≤ 150.
The results showed that significantly more patients receiving subcutaneous vedolizumab than placebo achieved long-term clinical remission (48% vs 34%; P < .01), the company said in a news release.
The safety profile of subcutaneous vedolizumab is generally consistent with the known safety profile of IV vedolizumab, with the addition of injection-site reactions (including injection-site erythema, rash, pruritus, swelling, bruising, hematoma, pain, urticaria, and edema).
“Crohn’s disease is a complex and usually progressive disease for which an appropriate management plan is critical. My primary goal as a clinician is always to get patients to achieve remission,” Timothy Ritter, MD, senior medical director, GI Alliance Research, and assistant professor of medicine, Burnett School of Medicine at TCU, Fort Worth, Texas, said in the news release.
“In VISIBLE 2, about half of patients treated with Entyvio SC achieved long-term clinical remission. The data from VISIBLE 2 reaffirm the well-established efficacy profile of Entyvio, regardless of route of administration,” Dr. Ritter added.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The move follows the FDA’s approval last year of subcutaneous vedolizumab for maintenance treatment of adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).
The humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody is available as a single-dose prefilled pen (Entyvio Pen).
The FDA first approved the IV formulation of the biologic in 2014 for patients with moderate to severe UC and CD who cannot tolerate other therapies or in whom such therapies have failed.
The approval of subcutaneous vedolizumab for maintenance treatment of CD is based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled VISIBLE 2 trial.
The trial enrolled 409 adult patients with moderately to severely active CD who had clinical response at week 6 following two doses of open-label IV vedolizumab at weeks 0 and 2.
At week 6, they were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to receive vedolizumab 108 mg administered by subcutaneous injection or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, which was defined as a total Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score ≤ 150.
The results showed that significantly more patients receiving subcutaneous vedolizumab than placebo achieved long-term clinical remission (48% vs 34%; P < .01), the company said in a news release.
The safety profile of subcutaneous vedolizumab is generally consistent with the known safety profile of IV vedolizumab, with the addition of injection-site reactions (including injection-site erythema, rash, pruritus, swelling, bruising, hematoma, pain, urticaria, and edema).
“Crohn’s disease is a complex and usually progressive disease for which an appropriate management plan is critical. My primary goal as a clinician is always to get patients to achieve remission,” Timothy Ritter, MD, senior medical director, GI Alliance Research, and assistant professor of medicine, Burnett School of Medicine at TCU, Fort Worth, Texas, said in the news release.
“In VISIBLE 2, about half of patients treated with Entyvio SC achieved long-term clinical remission. The data from VISIBLE 2 reaffirm the well-established efficacy profile of Entyvio, regardless of route of administration,” Dr. Ritter added.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The move follows the FDA’s approval last year of subcutaneous vedolizumab for maintenance treatment of adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).
The humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody is available as a single-dose prefilled pen (Entyvio Pen).
The FDA first approved the IV formulation of the biologic in 2014 for patients with moderate to severe UC and CD who cannot tolerate other therapies or in whom such therapies have failed.
The approval of subcutaneous vedolizumab for maintenance treatment of CD is based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled VISIBLE 2 trial.
The trial enrolled 409 adult patients with moderately to severely active CD who had clinical response at week 6 following two doses of open-label IV vedolizumab at weeks 0 and 2.
At week 6, they were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to receive vedolizumab 108 mg administered by subcutaneous injection or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 52, which was defined as a total Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score ≤ 150.
The results showed that significantly more patients receiving subcutaneous vedolizumab than placebo achieved long-term clinical remission (48% vs 34%; P < .01), the company said in a news release.
The safety profile of subcutaneous vedolizumab is generally consistent with the known safety profile of IV vedolizumab, with the addition of injection-site reactions (including injection-site erythema, rash, pruritus, swelling, bruising, hematoma, pain, urticaria, and edema).
“Crohn’s disease is a complex and usually progressive disease for which an appropriate management plan is critical. My primary goal as a clinician is always to get patients to achieve remission,” Timothy Ritter, MD, senior medical director, GI Alliance Research, and assistant professor of medicine, Burnett School of Medicine at TCU, Fort Worth, Texas, said in the news release.
“In VISIBLE 2, about half of patients treated with Entyvio SC achieved long-term clinical remission. The data from VISIBLE 2 reaffirm the well-established efficacy profile of Entyvio, regardless of route of administration,” Dr. Ritter added.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lidocaine Nerve Block Effective for Severe, Refractory Migraine in Children
DENVER — , results of a randomized controlled trial show.
Investigators found children receiving bilateral occipital nerve blocks with 2% lidocaine had significantly greater pain relief than that of peers receiving saline injections.
Cases series have shown a benefit of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) — injections of local anesthetics over branches of the occipital or trigeminal nerve — for severe, refractory headache in children.
Although 80% of pediatric headache specialists use PNBs, there is “inconsistent insurance coverage” for this treatment, which had not been tested in a randomized controlled trial in children before now, lead investigator Christina Szperka, MD, with the Pediatric Headache Program, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told delegates attending the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Significant Results
Investigators enrolled 58 children and adolescents with acute status migrainosus. The mean age was 16 years, and reported gender was female for 44 participants, male for 11 participants, and nonbinary or transgender in 3 participants. Participants had a migraine flare duration of 22 days and had not responded to other treatments.
All participants had topical lidocaine cream applied for 30 minutes as a run-in step and could decline injections if they experienced sufficient benefit from cream alone.
“We used a lidocaine cream lead-in for two reasons. One was to try to see if we could address the issue of high placebo response in pediatric trials in particular, and also to see if we could help with blinding to injection,” said Dr. Szperka.
Topical lidocaine cream led to a small decrease in pain score overall (0.2 point on a 0-10 scale), and all participants proceeded to randomized blinded bilateral greater occipital nerve injection with 2% lidocaine or saline, she reported.
On the primary endpoint — change in pain score at 30 minutes — lidocaine was significantly more effective than saline, achieving a 2.3-point decrease on average (on a 0-10 scale) vs a 1.1-point decrease with saline (P = .01).
A 2-point pain reduction was achieved in 69% of patients in the lidocaine group versus 34% in the saline group.
Three quarters (76%) of patients getting lidocaine reported at least partial relief in severity or location of pain compared with 48% of those getting saline (P = .03). Rates of pain freedom at 30 minutes were 17% and 7%, respectively, and at 24 hours were 14% and 0%, respectively.
The majority of adverse events were mild and fairly equal across groups and included anxiety, worsening headache, injection site pain, dizziness, and numbness (more so with lidocaine). There was one case of anaphylaxis after lidocaine injection.
Quite unexpectedly, said Dr. Szperka, patients rated the saline injection as more painful than the lidocaine injection. “This was not what I expected going in, and I think is relevant for future trials,” she said.
Encouraging Results
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, said that as a neurologist and pain physician, he sees firsthand the “devastating impact of status migrainosus on children.”
“These debilitating headaches can rob them of precious school days, hindering learning and social interaction,” said Dr. Lakhan. “The constant pain and fear of the next attack can also take a toll on their emotional well-being.”
The impact on families is significant as well, highlighting the need to find more effective treatments, Dr. Lakhan said.
“Traditionally, we’ve relied on case studies to see the benefits of nerve blocks for migraine in younger patients. This is the first randomized controlled trial that shows lidocaine injections can be significantly more effective than a placebo for these unrelenting migraines,” he said.
“It’s important to note that this is a relatively small study, and not without safety concerns, including rare but potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis to lidocaine,” Dr. Lakhan added. “More research is needed, but these findings are encouraging. Lidocaine injections could become a valuable tool for managing treatment-resistant migraines in adolescents and young adults.”
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Szperka is a consultant for AbbVie and Teva; serves on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith; and is a site principal investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Lakhan had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER — , results of a randomized controlled trial show.
Investigators found children receiving bilateral occipital nerve blocks with 2% lidocaine had significantly greater pain relief than that of peers receiving saline injections.
Cases series have shown a benefit of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) — injections of local anesthetics over branches of the occipital or trigeminal nerve — for severe, refractory headache in children.
Although 80% of pediatric headache specialists use PNBs, there is “inconsistent insurance coverage” for this treatment, which had not been tested in a randomized controlled trial in children before now, lead investigator Christina Szperka, MD, with the Pediatric Headache Program, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told delegates attending the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Significant Results
Investigators enrolled 58 children and adolescents with acute status migrainosus. The mean age was 16 years, and reported gender was female for 44 participants, male for 11 participants, and nonbinary or transgender in 3 participants. Participants had a migraine flare duration of 22 days and had not responded to other treatments.
All participants had topical lidocaine cream applied for 30 minutes as a run-in step and could decline injections if they experienced sufficient benefit from cream alone.
“We used a lidocaine cream lead-in for two reasons. One was to try to see if we could address the issue of high placebo response in pediatric trials in particular, and also to see if we could help with blinding to injection,” said Dr. Szperka.
Topical lidocaine cream led to a small decrease in pain score overall (0.2 point on a 0-10 scale), and all participants proceeded to randomized blinded bilateral greater occipital nerve injection with 2% lidocaine or saline, she reported.
On the primary endpoint — change in pain score at 30 minutes — lidocaine was significantly more effective than saline, achieving a 2.3-point decrease on average (on a 0-10 scale) vs a 1.1-point decrease with saline (P = .01).
A 2-point pain reduction was achieved in 69% of patients in the lidocaine group versus 34% in the saline group.
Three quarters (76%) of patients getting lidocaine reported at least partial relief in severity or location of pain compared with 48% of those getting saline (P = .03). Rates of pain freedom at 30 minutes were 17% and 7%, respectively, and at 24 hours were 14% and 0%, respectively.
The majority of adverse events were mild and fairly equal across groups and included anxiety, worsening headache, injection site pain, dizziness, and numbness (more so with lidocaine). There was one case of anaphylaxis after lidocaine injection.
Quite unexpectedly, said Dr. Szperka, patients rated the saline injection as more painful than the lidocaine injection. “This was not what I expected going in, and I think is relevant for future trials,” she said.
Encouraging Results
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, said that as a neurologist and pain physician, he sees firsthand the “devastating impact of status migrainosus on children.”
“These debilitating headaches can rob them of precious school days, hindering learning and social interaction,” said Dr. Lakhan. “The constant pain and fear of the next attack can also take a toll on their emotional well-being.”
The impact on families is significant as well, highlighting the need to find more effective treatments, Dr. Lakhan said.
“Traditionally, we’ve relied on case studies to see the benefits of nerve blocks for migraine in younger patients. This is the first randomized controlled trial that shows lidocaine injections can be significantly more effective than a placebo for these unrelenting migraines,” he said.
“It’s important to note that this is a relatively small study, and not without safety concerns, including rare but potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis to lidocaine,” Dr. Lakhan added. “More research is needed, but these findings are encouraging. Lidocaine injections could become a valuable tool for managing treatment-resistant migraines in adolescents and young adults.”
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Szperka is a consultant for AbbVie and Teva; serves on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith; and is a site principal investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Lakhan had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER — , results of a randomized controlled trial show.
Investigators found children receiving bilateral occipital nerve blocks with 2% lidocaine had significantly greater pain relief than that of peers receiving saline injections.
Cases series have shown a benefit of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) — injections of local anesthetics over branches of the occipital or trigeminal nerve — for severe, refractory headache in children.
Although 80% of pediatric headache specialists use PNBs, there is “inconsistent insurance coverage” for this treatment, which had not been tested in a randomized controlled trial in children before now, lead investigator Christina Szperka, MD, with the Pediatric Headache Program, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told delegates attending the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Significant Results
Investigators enrolled 58 children and adolescents with acute status migrainosus. The mean age was 16 years, and reported gender was female for 44 participants, male for 11 participants, and nonbinary or transgender in 3 participants. Participants had a migraine flare duration of 22 days and had not responded to other treatments.
All participants had topical lidocaine cream applied for 30 minutes as a run-in step and could decline injections if they experienced sufficient benefit from cream alone.
“We used a lidocaine cream lead-in for two reasons. One was to try to see if we could address the issue of high placebo response in pediatric trials in particular, and also to see if we could help with blinding to injection,” said Dr. Szperka.
Topical lidocaine cream led to a small decrease in pain score overall (0.2 point on a 0-10 scale), and all participants proceeded to randomized blinded bilateral greater occipital nerve injection with 2% lidocaine or saline, she reported.
On the primary endpoint — change in pain score at 30 minutes — lidocaine was significantly more effective than saline, achieving a 2.3-point decrease on average (on a 0-10 scale) vs a 1.1-point decrease with saline (P = .01).
A 2-point pain reduction was achieved in 69% of patients in the lidocaine group versus 34% in the saline group.
Three quarters (76%) of patients getting lidocaine reported at least partial relief in severity or location of pain compared with 48% of those getting saline (P = .03). Rates of pain freedom at 30 minutes were 17% and 7%, respectively, and at 24 hours were 14% and 0%, respectively.
The majority of adverse events were mild and fairly equal across groups and included anxiety, worsening headache, injection site pain, dizziness, and numbness (more so with lidocaine). There was one case of anaphylaxis after lidocaine injection.
Quite unexpectedly, said Dr. Szperka, patients rated the saline injection as more painful than the lidocaine injection. “This was not what I expected going in, and I think is relevant for future trials,” she said.
Encouraging Results
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, said that as a neurologist and pain physician, he sees firsthand the “devastating impact of status migrainosus on children.”
“These debilitating headaches can rob them of precious school days, hindering learning and social interaction,” said Dr. Lakhan. “The constant pain and fear of the next attack can also take a toll on their emotional well-being.”
The impact on families is significant as well, highlighting the need to find more effective treatments, Dr. Lakhan said.
“Traditionally, we’ve relied on case studies to see the benefits of nerve blocks for migraine in younger patients. This is the first randomized controlled trial that shows lidocaine injections can be significantly more effective than a placebo for these unrelenting migraines,” he said.
“It’s important to note that this is a relatively small study, and not without safety concerns, including rare but potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis to lidocaine,” Dr. Lakhan added. “More research is needed, but these findings are encouraging. Lidocaine injections could become a valuable tool for managing treatment-resistant migraines in adolescents and young adults.”
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Szperka is a consultant for AbbVie and Teva; serves on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith; and is a site principal investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Lakhan had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Vaporized Cannabis for Acute Migraine Yields Rapid, Sustained Relief
DENVER — , new research suggests.
“In this single-center randomized controlled trial across 247 treated migraine attacks, four puffs of vaporized THC-CBD mix were efficacious for acute migraine treatment,” said study investigator Nathaniel Marc Schuster, MD, with University of California San Diego Center for Pain Medicine.
The superiority of THC-CBD over placebo was “unlikely explained by unmasking given that in our blinding analysis most patients who got THC actually did not think they got some THC,” Dr. Schuster said.
He presented the results at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Sustained Pain Relief
Preclinical and retrospective studies point to antimigraine effects of cannabinoids, yet strong evidence of efficacy from a randomized controlled trial has been lacking.
The researchers tested the efficacy of cannabis for acute migraine in what they report is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of adults with migraine.
Participants treated up to four separate moderate to severe migraine attacks, each with one of four different treatments. The four treatments were: 6% THC, 11% CBD, a mix of 6% THC and 11% CBD, or placebo flower from the National Institute on Drug Abuse that has a similar taste and smell to the other products.
The four treatments were vaporized in a randomized order, with at least 1 week washout between treatments. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours from vaporization. Secondary endpoints were freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours from vaporization.
Of the 92 enrolled patients (mean age 41 years, 83% women), 19 treated zero migraine attacks thus leaving 73 patients who treated a total of 247 migraine attacks over the 1-year study.
The THC-CBD mix was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%; P = .016), pain freedom (34.5% vs 15.5%; P = .017), and MBS freedom (60.3% vs 34.5%; P = .005) at 2 hours.
The THC-CBD mix was also superior to placebo for sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours.
There were no serious adverse events. The THC-CBD mix was better tolerated than THC-only was, with lower rates of euphoria and cognitive impairment and lower subjective highness, Dr. Schuster said.
Adverse events were more common with THC only (vs THC-CBD) “and this is really expected because CBD is known to bring down the side effects of THC,” Dr. Schuster noted.
Summing up his presentation, Dr. Schuster said, “This is one single-center study, and, of course, we need more data. We need to study the rates of medication overuse headache and the rates of cannabis use disorder that may develop with the use of cannabis for migraine.”
Cautious Optimism
Reached for comment, Hsiangkuo (Scott) Yuan, MD, PhD, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, and director of clinical research, Jefferson Headache Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, noted that the “statistically significant” differences between THC-CBD versus placebo on 2-hour pain relief, pain freedom and MBS freedom are “certainly very exciting, especially when no serious adverse event was reported.”
“Since THC has a narrow therapeutic window for analgesia (too high causes psychoactive side effects and may even worsen the pain), its dosing needs to be carefully controlled. The study was wisely designed to ensure uniform dosing from the vaporizer, which is usually safer than smoking or a vape pen and has a quicker onset than ingestion for acute usage,” said Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the study.
“However, the optimal THC-CBD ratio and potency (percent THC) for acute migraine remain to be studied. Perhaps there is an individualized dose that can be obtained by titration. We also don’t know if the effect changes after repeated use,” Dr. Yuan cautioned.
He also noted that cannabis use was associated with medication overuse headache in a retrospective study, “although the causality remains to be determined.”
“While there was no serious adverse event, it is not completely risk-free, especially when cannabis is used repeatedly for a short duration. Since the physician does not have direct control over what happens at the dispensary, we need to counsel our patients more carefully when recommending cannabis/cannabinoids,” Dr. Yuan said.
Overall, he said he is “cautiously optimistic about cannabis use for acute migraine.”
This was an investigator-initiated study, with no commercial funding. Dr. Schuster has disclosed relationships with Schedule 1 Therapeutics, Averitas, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, ShiraTronics, and Syneos. In the past 24 months, Dr. Yuan has served as a site investigator for Teva, AbbVie, Ipsen, Parema; received advisory/consultant fees from Salvia, Pfizer, AbbVie, Cerenovus; and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER — , new research suggests.
“In this single-center randomized controlled trial across 247 treated migraine attacks, four puffs of vaporized THC-CBD mix were efficacious for acute migraine treatment,” said study investigator Nathaniel Marc Schuster, MD, with University of California San Diego Center for Pain Medicine.
The superiority of THC-CBD over placebo was “unlikely explained by unmasking given that in our blinding analysis most patients who got THC actually did not think they got some THC,” Dr. Schuster said.
He presented the results at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Sustained Pain Relief
Preclinical and retrospective studies point to antimigraine effects of cannabinoids, yet strong evidence of efficacy from a randomized controlled trial has been lacking.
The researchers tested the efficacy of cannabis for acute migraine in what they report is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of adults with migraine.
Participants treated up to four separate moderate to severe migraine attacks, each with one of four different treatments. The four treatments were: 6% THC, 11% CBD, a mix of 6% THC and 11% CBD, or placebo flower from the National Institute on Drug Abuse that has a similar taste and smell to the other products.
The four treatments were vaporized in a randomized order, with at least 1 week washout between treatments. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours from vaporization. Secondary endpoints were freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours from vaporization.
Of the 92 enrolled patients (mean age 41 years, 83% women), 19 treated zero migraine attacks thus leaving 73 patients who treated a total of 247 migraine attacks over the 1-year study.
The THC-CBD mix was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%; P = .016), pain freedom (34.5% vs 15.5%; P = .017), and MBS freedom (60.3% vs 34.5%; P = .005) at 2 hours.
The THC-CBD mix was also superior to placebo for sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours.
There were no serious adverse events. The THC-CBD mix was better tolerated than THC-only was, with lower rates of euphoria and cognitive impairment and lower subjective highness, Dr. Schuster said.
Adverse events were more common with THC only (vs THC-CBD) “and this is really expected because CBD is known to bring down the side effects of THC,” Dr. Schuster noted.
Summing up his presentation, Dr. Schuster said, “This is one single-center study, and, of course, we need more data. We need to study the rates of medication overuse headache and the rates of cannabis use disorder that may develop with the use of cannabis for migraine.”
Cautious Optimism
Reached for comment, Hsiangkuo (Scott) Yuan, MD, PhD, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, and director of clinical research, Jefferson Headache Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, noted that the “statistically significant” differences between THC-CBD versus placebo on 2-hour pain relief, pain freedom and MBS freedom are “certainly very exciting, especially when no serious adverse event was reported.”
“Since THC has a narrow therapeutic window for analgesia (too high causes psychoactive side effects and may even worsen the pain), its dosing needs to be carefully controlled. The study was wisely designed to ensure uniform dosing from the vaporizer, which is usually safer than smoking or a vape pen and has a quicker onset than ingestion for acute usage,” said Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the study.
“However, the optimal THC-CBD ratio and potency (percent THC) for acute migraine remain to be studied. Perhaps there is an individualized dose that can be obtained by titration. We also don’t know if the effect changes after repeated use,” Dr. Yuan cautioned.
He also noted that cannabis use was associated with medication overuse headache in a retrospective study, “although the causality remains to be determined.”
“While there was no serious adverse event, it is not completely risk-free, especially when cannabis is used repeatedly for a short duration. Since the physician does not have direct control over what happens at the dispensary, we need to counsel our patients more carefully when recommending cannabis/cannabinoids,” Dr. Yuan said.
Overall, he said he is “cautiously optimistic about cannabis use for acute migraine.”
This was an investigator-initiated study, with no commercial funding. Dr. Schuster has disclosed relationships with Schedule 1 Therapeutics, Averitas, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, ShiraTronics, and Syneos. In the past 24 months, Dr. Yuan has served as a site investigator for Teva, AbbVie, Ipsen, Parema; received advisory/consultant fees from Salvia, Pfizer, AbbVie, Cerenovus; and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER — , new research suggests.
“In this single-center randomized controlled trial across 247 treated migraine attacks, four puffs of vaporized THC-CBD mix were efficacious for acute migraine treatment,” said study investigator Nathaniel Marc Schuster, MD, with University of California San Diego Center for Pain Medicine.
The superiority of THC-CBD over placebo was “unlikely explained by unmasking given that in our blinding analysis most patients who got THC actually did not think they got some THC,” Dr. Schuster said.
He presented the results at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Sustained Pain Relief
Preclinical and retrospective studies point to antimigraine effects of cannabinoids, yet strong evidence of efficacy from a randomized controlled trial has been lacking.
The researchers tested the efficacy of cannabis for acute migraine in what they report is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of adults with migraine.
Participants treated up to four separate moderate to severe migraine attacks, each with one of four different treatments. The four treatments were: 6% THC, 11% CBD, a mix of 6% THC and 11% CBD, or placebo flower from the National Institute on Drug Abuse that has a similar taste and smell to the other products.
The four treatments were vaporized in a randomized order, with at least 1 week washout between treatments. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours from vaporization. Secondary endpoints were freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours from vaporization.
Of the 92 enrolled patients (mean age 41 years, 83% women), 19 treated zero migraine attacks thus leaving 73 patients who treated a total of 247 migraine attacks over the 1-year study.
The THC-CBD mix was superior to placebo at achieving pain relief (67.2% vs 46.6%; P = .016), pain freedom (34.5% vs 15.5%; P = .017), and MBS freedom (60.3% vs 34.5%; P = .005) at 2 hours.
The THC-CBD mix was also superior to placebo for sustained pain freedom at 24 hours and sustained MBS freedom at 24 and 48 hours.
There were no serious adverse events. The THC-CBD mix was better tolerated than THC-only was, with lower rates of euphoria and cognitive impairment and lower subjective highness, Dr. Schuster said.
Adverse events were more common with THC only (vs THC-CBD) “and this is really expected because CBD is known to bring down the side effects of THC,” Dr. Schuster noted.
Summing up his presentation, Dr. Schuster said, “This is one single-center study, and, of course, we need more data. We need to study the rates of medication overuse headache and the rates of cannabis use disorder that may develop with the use of cannabis for migraine.”
Cautious Optimism
Reached for comment, Hsiangkuo (Scott) Yuan, MD, PhD, Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, and director of clinical research, Jefferson Headache Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, noted that the “statistically significant” differences between THC-CBD versus placebo on 2-hour pain relief, pain freedom and MBS freedom are “certainly very exciting, especially when no serious adverse event was reported.”
“Since THC has a narrow therapeutic window for analgesia (too high causes psychoactive side effects and may even worsen the pain), its dosing needs to be carefully controlled. The study was wisely designed to ensure uniform dosing from the vaporizer, which is usually safer than smoking or a vape pen and has a quicker onset than ingestion for acute usage,” said Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the study.
“However, the optimal THC-CBD ratio and potency (percent THC) for acute migraine remain to be studied. Perhaps there is an individualized dose that can be obtained by titration. We also don’t know if the effect changes after repeated use,” Dr. Yuan cautioned.
He also noted that cannabis use was associated with medication overuse headache in a retrospective study, “although the causality remains to be determined.”
“While there was no serious adverse event, it is not completely risk-free, especially when cannabis is used repeatedly for a short duration. Since the physician does not have direct control over what happens at the dispensary, we need to counsel our patients more carefully when recommending cannabis/cannabinoids,” Dr. Yuan said.
Overall, he said he is “cautiously optimistic about cannabis use for acute migraine.”
This was an investigator-initiated study, with no commercial funding. Dr. Schuster has disclosed relationships with Schedule 1 Therapeutics, Averitas, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, ShiraTronics, and Syneos. In the past 24 months, Dr. Yuan has served as a site investigator for Teva, AbbVie, Ipsen, Parema; received advisory/consultant fees from Salvia, Pfizer, AbbVie, Cerenovus; and royalties from Cambridge University Press and MedLink.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Integrating Telemedicine for HCV With Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Works
People with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have hepatitis C virus (HCV) were twice as likely to be treated and cured of HCV if they received facilitated telemedicine treatment within their opioid treatment program than if they were referred for off-site treatment, the results of a new study showed.
In addition, among cured patients, illicit drug use fell significantly, and there were few reinfections, reported the researchers, led by Andrew Talal, MD, MPH, with the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo.
The study was published online in JAMA.
HCV is a major public health concern, especially among people with OUD. Geographic and logistical barriers often prevent this underserved population from accessing treatment; however, telemedicine has the potential to overcome these obstacles.
In a prospective cluster randomized clinical trial, Dr. Talal and colleagues assessed the impact of embedding facilitated telemedicine for HCV care into 12 opioid treatment programs in New York State.
They studied 602 HCV-infected adults (61% male; 51% White) with OUD. Of these, 290 (mean age, 47.1 years) were enrolled in facilitated telemedicine programs onsite, and 312 (mean age, 48.9 years) received an off-site referral (usual care).
Telemedicine participants had an initial telemedicine encounter facilitated by study case managers onsite who also administered a blood test. The telemedicine clinician subsequently evaluated participants and ordered direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medication that was delivered to the opioid treatment program monthly (as refills required) and dispensed along with methadone.
In the telemedicine group, 268 of 290 individuals (92.4%) initiated HCV treatment compared with 126 of 312 (40.4%) in the referral group.
Participants in the telemedicine group were also seen sooner and started treatment faster.
The interval between screening and initial appointments was 14 days with telemedicine vs 18 days with a referral (P = .04). The time between the initial visit and DAA initiation was 49.9 days with telemedicine vs 123.5 days with a referral (P < .001).
Intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly higher HCV cure rates with telemedicine than with referral (90.3% vs 39.4%, respectively). Similarly, the observed cure rates were also higher in the telemedicine group (84.8% vs 34.0%).
Sustained virologic response was durable, with only 13 reinfections (incidence, 2.5 per 100 person-years) occurring during the 2-year follow-up period, the researchers reported.
In addition, illicit drug use decreased significantly among cured patients in both the telemedicine group (P < .001) and the referral group (P = .001). Adults in both groups rated healthcare delivery satisfaction as high or very high.
“Our study demonstrates how telemedicine successfully integrates medical and behavioral treatment,” Dr. Talal said in a statement.
The intervention “builds patient-clinician trust across the screen, and significant decreases in substance use were observed in cured participants with minimal HCV reinfections,” the study team wrote.
Support for this research was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and by the Troup Fund of the Kaleida Health Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
People with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have hepatitis C virus (HCV) were twice as likely to be treated and cured of HCV if they received facilitated telemedicine treatment within their opioid treatment program than if they were referred for off-site treatment, the results of a new study showed.
In addition, among cured patients, illicit drug use fell significantly, and there were few reinfections, reported the researchers, led by Andrew Talal, MD, MPH, with the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo.
The study was published online in JAMA.
HCV is a major public health concern, especially among people with OUD. Geographic and logistical barriers often prevent this underserved population from accessing treatment; however, telemedicine has the potential to overcome these obstacles.
In a prospective cluster randomized clinical trial, Dr. Talal and colleagues assessed the impact of embedding facilitated telemedicine for HCV care into 12 opioid treatment programs in New York State.
They studied 602 HCV-infected adults (61% male; 51% White) with OUD. Of these, 290 (mean age, 47.1 years) were enrolled in facilitated telemedicine programs onsite, and 312 (mean age, 48.9 years) received an off-site referral (usual care).
Telemedicine participants had an initial telemedicine encounter facilitated by study case managers onsite who also administered a blood test. The telemedicine clinician subsequently evaluated participants and ordered direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medication that was delivered to the opioid treatment program monthly (as refills required) and dispensed along with methadone.
In the telemedicine group, 268 of 290 individuals (92.4%) initiated HCV treatment compared with 126 of 312 (40.4%) in the referral group.
Participants in the telemedicine group were also seen sooner and started treatment faster.
The interval between screening and initial appointments was 14 days with telemedicine vs 18 days with a referral (P = .04). The time between the initial visit and DAA initiation was 49.9 days with telemedicine vs 123.5 days with a referral (P < .001).
Intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly higher HCV cure rates with telemedicine than with referral (90.3% vs 39.4%, respectively). Similarly, the observed cure rates were also higher in the telemedicine group (84.8% vs 34.0%).
Sustained virologic response was durable, with only 13 reinfections (incidence, 2.5 per 100 person-years) occurring during the 2-year follow-up period, the researchers reported.
In addition, illicit drug use decreased significantly among cured patients in both the telemedicine group (P < .001) and the referral group (P = .001). Adults in both groups rated healthcare delivery satisfaction as high or very high.
“Our study demonstrates how telemedicine successfully integrates medical and behavioral treatment,” Dr. Talal said in a statement.
The intervention “builds patient-clinician trust across the screen, and significant decreases in substance use were observed in cured participants with minimal HCV reinfections,” the study team wrote.
Support for this research was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and by the Troup Fund of the Kaleida Health Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
People with opioid use disorder (OUD) who have hepatitis C virus (HCV) were twice as likely to be treated and cured of HCV if they received facilitated telemedicine treatment within their opioid treatment program than if they were referred for off-site treatment, the results of a new study showed.
In addition, among cured patients, illicit drug use fell significantly, and there were few reinfections, reported the researchers, led by Andrew Talal, MD, MPH, with the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo.
The study was published online in JAMA.
HCV is a major public health concern, especially among people with OUD. Geographic and logistical barriers often prevent this underserved population from accessing treatment; however, telemedicine has the potential to overcome these obstacles.
In a prospective cluster randomized clinical trial, Dr. Talal and colleagues assessed the impact of embedding facilitated telemedicine for HCV care into 12 opioid treatment programs in New York State.
They studied 602 HCV-infected adults (61% male; 51% White) with OUD. Of these, 290 (mean age, 47.1 years) were enrolled in facilitated telemedicine programs onsite, and 312 (mean age, 48.9 years) received an off-site referral (usual care).
Telemedicine participants had an initial telemedicine encounter facilitated by study case managers onsite who also administered a blood test. The telemedicine clinician subsequently evaluated participants and ordered direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medication that was delivered to the opioid treatment program monthly (as refills required) and dispensed along with methadone.
In the telemedicine group, 268 of 290 individuals (92.4%) initiated HCV treatment compared with 126 of 312 (40.4%) in the referral group.
Participants in the telemedicine group were also seen sooner and started treatment faster.
The interval between screening and initial appointments was 14 days with telemedicine vs 18 days with a referral (P = .04). The time between the initial visit and DAA initiation was 49.9 days with telemedicine vs 123.5 days with a referral (P < .001).
Intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly higher HCV cure rates with telemedicine than with referral (90.3% vs 39.4%, respectively). Similarly, the observed cure rates were also higher in the telemedicine group (84.8% vs 34.0%).
Sustained virologic response was durable, with only 13 reinfections (incidence, 2.5 per 100 person-years) occurring during the 2-year follow-up period, the researchers reported.
In addition, illicit drug use decreased significantly among cured patients in both the telemedicine group (P < .001) and the referral group (P = .001). Adults in both groups rated healthcare delivery satisfaction as high or very high.
“Our study demonstrates how telemedicine successfully integrates medical and behavioral treatment,” Dr. Talal said in a statement.
The intervention “builds patient-clinician trust across the screen, and significant decreases in substance use were observed in cured participants with minimal HCV reinfections,” the study team wrote.
Support for this research was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and by the Troup Fund of the Kaleida Health Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM JAMA
IV Ketamine Promising for Severe Refractory Headache in Children
DENVER — , new research suggests. In a retrospective chart review, IV ketamine led to in a 50% reduction in pain at discharge, with “nearly two-thirds” of patients having no recurrence within 30 days, noted lead investigator Scott Rosenthal, MD, from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
Dr. Rosenthal reported the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Statistically Significant Pain Relief
“IV ketamine has shown benefit in nonheadache chronic pain syndromes and refractory mood disorders. Patients with refractory status migraines are often left with ongoing pain and dysfunction after failing typical interventions,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
“Ketamine has emerged as a potential treatment option in this population. However, there’s very little research on the efficacy and tolerability of it in general as well as the pediatric population,” he noted.
Dr. Rosenthal and colleagues took a look back at patients admitted to Children’s Hospital Colorado between 2019 and 2022 for treatment of severe refractory headache who were treated with continuous IV ketamine.
They analyzed 68 encounters of 41 unique patients aged 5-21 years (median age 16 years; 85% girls). Chronic migraine without aura made up 79% of cases.
On presentation, most patients had an exacerbation or ongoing worsening of pain for about 10 days, and all but two were taking a preventive medication. Nearly 70% had a comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as anxiety or depression, and 60% had a comorbid chronic pain diagnosis separate from their headache diagnosis.
The primary outcome was percent pain reduction at discharge and headache recurrence within 72 hours, with headache recurrence defined as receipt of neurology care via phone, clinic, or hospital encounter.
Patients received IV ketamine at a median dose of 0.25 mg/kg/hr for a median of 3 days.
Overall, the treatment was “safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
There were no serious adverse events and no cardiac side effects; 7% (five out of 68) stopped treatment due to side effects. The most common side effects were dizziness (23%), nausea (16%), blurred vision (12%), hallucinations (19%), cognitive fog (7%), vomiting (6%) and dysphoria (4%), worsening headache (4%), and paresthesia and cramping (1.5%).
‘Exciting Starting Point’
At baseline, pain scores were 8 (on a scale of 0-10) and progressively fell (improved) during treatment. Pain scores were 6 on day 1 and were 5 on day 2, with a slight rebound to 5 at discharge, although the pain reduction at discharge (vs baseline) remained statistically significant (P < .001).
“The median percent pain reduction after 3 days of ketamine was about 40%,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
He noted that on the first day of treatment, 16% of patients responded to treatment (with a > 50% reduction in their initial pain); this doubled to 33% on day 2 and increased to 44% at discharge.
In terms of recurrence, 38% had a recurrence within 1 month, “meaning two thirds did not,” Dr. Rosenthal noted. Median time to recurrence was 7 days. There were no recurrences within 72 hours.
The researchers also tried to tease out which patients might respond best to ketamine.
“Surprisingly,” there wasn’t a strong effect of most demographic variables such as age, sex, gender identity, chronic pain, psychiatric comorbidities, duration of headache, or prior interventions, Dr. Rosenthal noted.
“Interestingly,” he said, patients who were on two or more preventive medications had a 50% reduction in their pain at discharge compared with a 33% reduction in patients taking one or no preventive medication. It’s possible that more preventative medications may “prime” a patient’s response to ketamine, Dr. Rosenthal said.
She added that future randomized studies are needed to further assess IV ketamine for refractory headache in children, but these results are “an exciting starting point.”
‘Still an Unknown’
Seniha Nur Ozudogru, MD, assistant professor of clinical neurology at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, echoed the need for further study.
The role of IV ketamine in refractory pediatric headache is “still an unknown,” said Dr. Ozudogru, who was not involved in the study.
She noted that currently, there is “no standard protocol for ketamine infusion, even for adults. Every institution has their own protocols, which makes it difficult.”
Dr. Ozudogru also wonders how “doable” in-hospital IV infusions over 3 days may be for children.
“Especially for chronic migraine patients, it can be really tricky to manage expectations in that even if they don’t respond and the headache doesn’t go away, they still may have to be discharged. That requires a specific approach and discussion with the patients,” Dr. Ozudogru said.
Intranasal ketamine is another potential option, she said, with a recent study suggesting that intranasal ketamine is an effective treatment for children hospitalized with refractory migraine.
“However, there is some concern about the potential of addiction and the side effects of hallucinations and what the main protocol will be, so this not a standard treatment and has to be studied further,” she said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Rosenthal and Dr. Ozudogru have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER — , new research suggests. In a retrospective chart review, IV ketamine led to in a 50% reduction in pain at discharge, with “nearly two-thirds” of patients having no recurrence within 30 days, noted lead investigator Scott Rosenthal, MD, from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
Dr. Rosenthal reported the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Statistically Significant Pain Relief
“IV ketamine has shown benefit in nonheadache chronic pain syndromes and refractory mood disorders. Patients with refractory status migraines are often left with ongoing pain and dysfunction after failing typical interventions,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
“Ketamine has emerged as a potential treatment option in this population. However, there’s very little research on the efficacy and tolerability of it in general as well as the pediatric population,” he noted.
Dr. Rosenthal and colleagues took a look back at patients admitted to Children’s Hospital Colorado between 2019 and 2022 for treatment of severe refractory headache who were treated with continuous IV ketamine.
They analyzed 68 encounters of 41 unique patients aged 5-21 years (median age 16 years; 85% girls). Chronic migraine without aura made up 79% of cases.
On presentation, most patients had an exacerbation or ongoing worsening of pain for about 10 days, and all but two were taking a preventive medication. Nearly 70% had a comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as anxiety or depression, and 60% had a comorbid chronic pain diagnosis separate from their headache diagnosis.
The primary outcome was percent pain reduction at discharge and headache recurrence within 72 hours, with headache recurrence defined as receipt of neurology care via phone, clinic, or hospital encounter.
Patients received IV ketamine at a median dose of 0.25 mg/kg/hr for a median of 3 days.
Overall, the treatment was “safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
There were no serious adverse events and no cardiac side effects; 7% (five out of 68) stopped treatment due to side effects. The most common side effects were dizziness (23%), nausea (16%), blurred vision (12%), hallucinations (19%), cognitive fog (7%), vomiting (6%) and dysphoria (4%), worsening headache (4%), and paresthesia and cramping (1.5%).
‘Exciting Starting Point’
At baseline, pain scores were 8 (on a scale of 0-10) and progressively fell (improved) during treatment. Pain scores were 6 on day 1 and were 5 on day 2, with a slight rebound to 5 at discharge, although the pain reduction at discharge (vs baseline) remained statistically significant (P < .001).
“The median percent pain reduction after 3 days of ketamine was about 40%,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
He noted that on the first day of treatment, 16% of patients responded to treatment (with a > 50% reduction in their initial pain); this doubled to 33% on day 2 and increased to 44% at discharge.
In terms of recurrence, 38% had a recurrence within 1 month, “meaning two thirds did not,” Dr. Rosenthal noted. Median time to recurrence was 7 days. There were no recurrences within 72 hours.
The researchers also tried to tease out which patients might respond best to ketamine.
“Surprisingly,” there wasn’t a strong effect of most demographic variables such as age, sex, gender identity, chronic pain, psychiatric comorbidities, duration of headache, or prior interventions, Dr. Rosenthal noted.
“Interestingly,” he said, patients who were on two or more preventive medications had a 50% reduction in their pain at discharge compared with a 33% reduction in patients taking one or no preventive medication. It’s possible that more preventative medications may “prime” a patient’s response to ketamine, Dr. Rosenthal said.
She added that future randomized studies are needed to further assess IV ketamine for refractory headache in children, but these results are “an exciting starting point.”
‘Still an Unknown’
Seniha Nur Ozudogru, MD, assistant professor of clinical neurology at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, echoed the need for further study.
The role of IV ketamine in refractory pediatric headache is “still an unknown,” said Dr. Ozudogru, who was not involved in the study.
She noted that currently, there is “no standard protocol for ketamine infusion, even for adults. Every institution has their own protocols, which makes it difficult.”
Dr. Ozudogru also wonders how “doable” in-hospital IV infusions over 3 days may be for children.
“Especially for chronic migraine patients, it can be really tricky to manage expectations in that even if they don’t respond and the headache doesn’t go away, they still may have to be discharged. That requires a specific approach and discussion with the patients,” Dr. Ozudogru said.
Intranasal ketamine is another potential option, she said, with a recent study suggesting that intranasal ketamine is an effective treatment for children hospitalized with refractory migraine.
“However, there is some concern about the potential of addiction and the side effects of hallucinations and what the main protocol will be, so this not a standard treatment and has to be studied further,” she said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Rosenthal and Dr. Ozudogru have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER — , new research suggests. In a retrospective chart review, IV ketamine led to in a 50% reduction in pain at discharge, with “nearly two-thirds” of patients having no recurrence within 30 days, noted lead investigator Scott Rosenthal, MD, from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.
Dr. Rosenthal reported the findings at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Statistically Significant Pain Relief
“IV ketamine has shown benefit in nonheadache chronic pain syndromes and refractory mood disorders. Patients with refractory status migraines are often left with ongoing pain and dysfunction after failing typical interventions,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
“Ketamine has emerged as a potential treatment option in this population. However, there’s very little research on the efficacy and tolerability of it in general as well as the pediatric population,” he noted.
Dr. Rosenthal and colleagues took a look back at patients admitted to Children’s Hospital Colorado between 2019 and 2022 for treatment of severe refractory headache who were treated with continuous IV ketamine.
They analyzed 68 encounters of 41 unique patients aged 5-21 years (median age 16 years; 85% girls). Chronic migraine without aura made up 79% of cases.
On presentation, most patients had an exacerbation or ongoing worsening of pain for about 10 days, and all but two were taking a preventive medication. Nearly 70% had a comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as anxiety or depression, and 60% had a comorbid chronic pain diagnosis separate from their headache diagnosis.
The primary outcome was percent pain reduction at discharge and headache recurrence within 72 hours, with headache recurrence defined as receipt of neurology care via phone, clinic, or hospital encounter.
Patients received IV ketamine at a median dose of 0.25 mg/kg/hr for a median of 3 days.
Overall, the treatment was “safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
There were no serious adverse events and no cardiac side effects; 7% (five out of 68) stopped treatment due to side effects. The most common side effects were dizziness (23%), nausea (16%), blurred vision (12%), hallucinations (19%), cognitive fog (7%), vomiting (6%) and dysphoria (4%), worsening headache (4%), and paresthesia and cramping (1.5%).
‘Exciting Starting Point’
At baseline, pain scores were 8 (on a scale of 0-10) and progressively fell (improved) during treatment. Pain scores were 6 on day 1 and were 5 on day 2, with a slight rebound to 5 at discharge, although the pain reduction at discharge (vs baseline) remained statistically significant (P < .001).
“The median percent pain reduction after 3 days of ketamine was about 40%,” Dr. Rosenthal said.
He noted that on the first day of treatment, 16% of patients responded to treatment (with a > 50% reduction in their initial pain); this doubled to 33% on day 2 and increased to 44% at discharge.
In terms of recurrence, 38% had a recurrence within 1 month, “meaning two thirds did not,” Dr. Rosenthal noted. Median time to recurrence was 7 days. There were no recurrences within 72 hours.
The researchers also tried to tease out which patients might respond best to ketamine.
“Surprisingly,” there wasn’t a strong effect of most demographic variables such as age, sex, gender identity, chronic pain, psychiatric comorbidities, duration of headache, or prior interventions, Dr. Rosenthal noted.
“Interestingly,” he said, patients who were on two or more preventive medications had a 50% reduction in their pain at discharge compared with a 33% reduction in patients taking one or no preventive medication. It’s possible that more preventative medications may “prime” a patient’s response to ketamine, Dr. Rosenthal said.
She added that future randomized studies are needed to further assess IV ketamine for refractory headache in children, but these results are “an exciting starting point.”
‘Still an Unknown’
Seniha Nur Ozudogru, MD, assistant professor of clinical neurology at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, echoed the need for further study.
The role of IV ketamine in refractory pediatric headache is “still an unknown,” said Dr. Ozudogru, who was not involved in the study.
She noted that currently, there is “no standard protocol for ketamine infusion, even for adults. Every institution has their own protocols, which makes it difficult.”
Dr. Ozudogru also wonders how “doable” in-hospital IV infusions over 3 days may be for children.
“Especially for chronic migraine patients, it can be really tricky to manage expectations in that even if they don’t respond and the headache doesn’t go away, they still may have to be discharged. That requires a specific approach and discussion with the patients,” Dr. Ozudogru said.
Intranasal ketamine is another potential option, she said, with a recent study suggesting that intranasal ketamine is an effective treatment for children hospitalized with refractory migraine.
“However, there is some concern about the potential of addiction and the side effects of hallucinations and what the main protocol will be, so this not a standard treatment and has to be studied further,” she said.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Rosenthal and Dr. Ozudogru have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Microbial Signature of KRAS-Mutated Colorectal Cancer Identified
Their findings suggest that the gut microbes may serve as noninvasive biomarkers to help identify subtypes of CRC and guide personalized treatment recommendations.
“Our new work contributes to the growing body of evidence highlighting the significance of microbiota-driven mechanisms in cancer pathogenesis,” lead investigator Weizhong Tang, MD, with Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital in Nanning, China, said in a statement.
The research was recently published online in Microbiology Spectrum.
The onset and growth of CRC has been linked both to imbalances in the gut microbiome and to mutations in the KRAS gene — about 40% of people with CRC have a KRAS mutation. Yet, the interplay between gut dysbiosis and KRAS mutations in CRC remains unclear.
To investigate further, Dr. Tang and colleagues used 16s rRNA sequencing to analyze stool samples from 94 patients with CRC, including 24 with KRAS-mutated CRC and 70 with KRAS wild-type (nonmutated) CRC.
The researchers identified 26 distinct types of gut microbiota with statistically significant differences in abundance between the KRAS mutant and KRAS wild-type CRC patients.
At the genus level, Fusobacterium, Clostridium, and Shewanella were all abundant in the KRAS mutant group.
Fusobacterium is a Gram-negative microbe found in the gastrointestinal tract and the oral cavity. Recent studies have established a strong link between Fusobacterium and CRC development. Other work found elevated levels of Fusobacterium nucleatum were not only closely associated with KRAS mutation but also correlated with chemoresistance in CRC.
Clostridium produces metabolites in the large intestine, which are known to cause DNA damage and trigger inflammatory responses, thereby increasing the risk of CRC development.
Similarly, Shewanella has been proven to be a contributor to CRC development.
The researchers say it’s “plausible” to consider all three as potential noninvasive biomarkers for identifying KRAS mutation in CRC patients.
In contrast, Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia were abundant in the KRAS wild-type group.
Bifidobacterium is a probiotic with antitumor activity and Akkermansia is a Gram-negative anaerobic bacterium abundant in the gut and currently recognized as a potential probiotic.
The researchers speculated that CRC patients may have a reduced likelihood of developing KRAS mutation in the presence of Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia.
Analyses of biological pathways of gut microbiota associated with KRAS mutation status in CRC revealed a significantly higher abundance of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway in the KRAS wild-type group compared with the KRAS mutant group.
“In comparison to KRAS mutant CRC, it is postulated that KRAS wild-type CRC may be less aggressive due to the upregulation of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway, which may inhibit CRC development and progression,” the authors wrote.
Promising Predictive Model
Dr. Tang and colleagues also developed a machine learning model to predict KRAS mutation status in CRC patients based on the gut microbiota signature in KRAS mutant CRC.
The initial results underscore the model’s predictive efficacy and suggest that it has “considerable potential for clinical application, offering a novel dimension in the prediction of KRAS mutation status among CRC patients in a clinical setting,” the authors wrote.
They caution that the model requires data from a larger cohort to improve its efficacy, and they plan to do larger studies to validate the findings.
The study had no commercial funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Their findings suggest that the gut microbes may serve as noninvasive biomarkers to help identify subtypes of CRC and guide personalized treatment recommendations.
“Our new work contributes to the growing body of evidence highlighting the significance of microbiota-driven mechanisms in cancer pathogenesis,” lead investigator Weizhong Tang, MD, with Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital in Nanning, China, said in a statement.
The research was recently published online in Microbiology Spectrum.
The onset and growth of CRC has been linked both to imbalances in the gut microbiome and to mutations in the KRAS gene — about 40% of people with CRC have a KRAS mutation. Yet, the interplay between gut dysbiosis and KRAS mutations in CRC remains unclear.
To investigate further, Dr. Tang and colleagues used 16s rRNA sequencing to analyze stool samples from 94 patients with CRC, including 24 with KRAS-mutated CRC and 70 with KRAS wild-type (nonmutated) CRC.
The researchers identified 26 distinct types of gut microbiota with statistically significant differences in abundance between the KRAS mutant and KRAS wild-type CRC patients.
At the genus level, Fusobacterium, Clostridium, and Shewanella were all abundant in the KRAS mutant group.
Fusobacterium is a Gram-negative microbe found in the gastrointestinal tract and the oral cavity. Recent studies have established a strong link between Fusobacterium and CRC development. Other work found elevated levels of Fusobacterium nucleatum were not only closely associated with KRAS mutation but also correlated with chemoresistance in CRC.
Clostridium produces metabolites in the large intestine, which are known to cause DNA damage and trigger inflammatory responses, thereby increasing the risk of CRC development.
Similarly, Shewanella has been proven to be a contributor to CRC development.
The researchers say it’s “plausible” to consider all three as potential noninvasive biomarkers for identifying KRAS mutation in CRC patients.
In contrast, Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia were abundant in the KRAS wild-type group.
Bifidobacterium is a probiotic with antitumor activity and Akkermansia is a Gram-negative anaerobic bacterium abundant in the gut and currently recognized as a potential probiotic.
The researchers speculated that CRC patients may have a reduced likelihood of developing KRAS mutation in the presence of Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia.
Analyses of biological pathways of gut microbiota associated with KRAS mutation status in CRC revealed a significantly higher abundance of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway in the KRAS wild-type group compared with the KRAS mutant group.
“In comparison to KRAS mutant CRC, it is postulated that KRAS wild-type CRC may be less aggressive due to the upregulation of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway, which may inhibit CRC development and progression,” the authors wrote.
Promising Predictive Model
Dr. Tang and colleagues also developed a machine learning model to predict KRAS mutation status in CRC patients based on the gut microbiota signature in KRAS mutant CRC.
The initial results underscore the model’s predictive efficacy and suggest that it has “considerable potential for clinical application, offering a novel dimension in the prediction of KRAS mutation status among CRC patients in a clinical setting,” the authors wrote.
They caution that the model requires data from a larger cohort to improve its efficacy, and they plan to do larger studies to validate the findings.
The study had no commercial funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Their findings suggest that the gut microbes may serve as noninvasive biomarkers to help identify subtypes of CRC and guide personalized treatment recommendations.
“Our new work contributes to the growing body of evidence highlighting the significance of microbiota-driven mechanisms in cancer pathogenesis,” lead investigator Weizhong Tang, MD, with Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital in Nanning, China, said in a statement.
The research was recently published online in Microbiology Spectrum.
The onset and growth of CRC has been linked both to imbalances in the gut microbiome and to mutations in the KRAS gene — about 40% of people with CRC have a KRAS mutation. Yet, the interplay between gut dysbiosis and KRAS mutations in CRC remains unclear.
To investigate further, Dr. Tang and colleagues used 16s rRNA sequencing to analyze stool samples from 94 patients with CRC, including 24 with KRAS-mutated CRC and 70 with KRAS wild-type (nonmutated) CRC.
The researchers identified 26 distinct types of gut microbiota with statistically significant differences in abundance between the KRAS mutant and KRAS wild-type CRC patients.
At the genus level, Fusobacterium, Clostridium, and Shewanella were all abundant in the KRAS mutant group.
Fusobacterium is a Gram-negative microbe found in the gastrointestinal tract and the oral cavity. Recent studies have established a strong link between Fusobacterium and CRC development. Other work found elevated levels of Fusobacterium nucleatum were not only closely associated with KRAS mutation but also correlated with chemoresistance in CRC.
Clostridium produces metabolites in the large intestine, which are known to cause DNA damage and trigger inflammatory responses, thereby increasing the risk of CRC development.
Similarly, Shewanella has been proven to be a contributor to CRC development.
The researchers say it’s “plausible” to consider all three as potential noninvasive biomarkers for identifying KRAS mutation in CRC patients.
In contrast, Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia were abundant in the KRAS wild-type group.
Bifidobacterium is a probiotic with antitumor activity and Akkermansia is a Gram-negative anaerobic bacterium abundant in the gut and currently recognized as a potential probiotic.
The researchers speculated that CRC patients may have a reduced likelihood of developing KRAS mutation in the presence of Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia.
Analyses of biological pathways of gut microbiota associated with KRAS mutation status in CRC revealed a significantly higher abundance of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway in the KRAS wild-type group compared with the KRAS mutant group.
“In comparison to KRAS mutant CRC, it is postulated that KRAS wild-type CRC may be less aggressive due to the upregulation of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway, which may inhibit CRC development and progression,” the authors wrote.
Promising Predictive Model
Dr. Tang and colleagues also developed a machine learning model to predict KRAS mutation status in CRC patients based on the gut microbiota signature in KRAS mutant CRC.
The initial results underscore the model’s predictive efficacy and suggest that it has “considerable potential for clinical application, offering a novel dimension in the prediction of KRAS mutation status among CRC patients in a clinical setting,” the authors wrote.
They caution that the model requires data from a larger cohort to improve its efficacy, and they plan to do larger studies to validate the findings.
The study had no commercial funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Most Targeted Cancer Drugs Lack Substantial Clinical Benefit
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
- Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
- In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
- The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
- The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).
TAKEAWAY:
- The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
- Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
- Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
- Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.
IN PRACTICE:
“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
First Long-Term Data on Atogepant for Migraine Prevention
DENVER —
The data show that 70% of patients treated with atogepant 60 mg daily achieved at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16 and this was maintained over 48 weeks of treatment.
“This is the first long-term study for assessing the safety and efficacy of a drug belonging to the gepant class, atogepant, used in the prevention of migraine in persons with episodic migraine who did not benefit from several previous preventive treatments or with chronic migraine,” said study investigator Cristina Tassorelli, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Pavia, Italy.
“It shows consistency of efficacy over 48 weeks and confirms the known safety profile of atogepant reported in randomized controlled trials, without detecting any new signal with the open-label use over 1 year,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The results were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology by Sait Ashina, MD, with the Comprehensive Headache Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
Novel Longer-Term Data
The extension study includes more than 500 patients who completed the phase 3 PROGRESS or ELEVATE randomized placebo-controlled trials of atogepant 60 mg once daily for prevention of episodic or chronic migraine. It will run for 156 weeks.
Dr. Ashina reported safety and tolerability data at 52 weeks of treatment and efficacy data between 13 and 48 weeks of treatment. The mean duration of atogepant exposure was 496.5 days, and the mean number of migraine days at baseline was 14.5.
With atogepant, monthly migraine days improved on average by 8.5 days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent over 48 weeks, Dr. Ashina reported. Similar improvements were observed for monthly headache days and monthly acute medication use days.
In addition, 70% of patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent during the 48 weeks of open-label treatment.
Overall safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant. “A small percentage of subjects (< 6%) discontinue the treatment because of side effects,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 5% of participants) were COVID-19 (28.7%), nasopharyngitis (10.9%), and constipation (8.2%).
As the first report of 1-year atogepant data, the results are “very encouraging” for patients and clinicians, Dr. Ashina said in wrapping up his presentation.
Important Advance, but Not Transformative
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, noted that “[w]hile the anti-CGRP medications represent an important advancement in migraine treatment, the data suggests they have not necessarily transformed the landscape as dramatically as some may have expected.
“The efficacy of the anti-CGRP drugs appears to be generally similar to previous preventive and mostly genericized treatments, offering modest but meaningful improvements in migraine frequency and severity for many patients,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“In terms of safety, the anti-CGRPs do seem to have a somewhat cleaner profile compared to earlier migraine preventives, which is certainly a positive. However, the long-term data is still emerging, so the full safety picture is not yet clear,” Dr. Lakhan added.
“These medications are also associated with significantly higher overall healthcare costs compared to other treatment approaches. The substantial cost implications, both for patients and the healthcare system, deserve careful consideration as we assess their overall value and role in migraine care going forward,” Dr. Lakhan said.
Funding was provided by AbbVie. Several investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company. Dr. Lakhan has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER —
The data show that 70% of patients treated with atogepant 60 mg daily achieved at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16 and this was maintained over 48 weeks of treatment.
“This is the first long-term study for assessing the safety and efficacy of a drug belonging to the gepant class, atogepant, used in the prevention of migraine in persons with episodic migraine who did not benefit from several previous preventive treatments or with chronic migraine,” said study investigator Cristina Tassorelli, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Pavia, Italy.
“It shows consistency of efficacy over 48 weeks and confirms the known safety profile of atogepant reported in randomized controlled trials, without detecting any new signal with the open-label use over 1 year,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The results were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology by Sait Ashina, MD, with the Comprehensive Headache Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
Novel Longer-Term Data
The extension study includes more than 500 patients who completed the phase 3 PROGRESS or ELEVATE randomized placebo-controlled trials of atogepant 60 mg once daily for prevention of episodic or chronic migraine. It will run for 156 weeks.
Dr. Ashina reported safety and tolerability data at 52 weeks of treatment and efficacy data between 13 and 48 weeks of treatment. The mean duration of atogepant exposure was 496.5 days, and the mean number of migraine days at baseline was 14.5.
With atogepant, monthly migraine days improved on average by 8.5 days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent over 48 weeks, Dr. Ashina reported. Similar improvements were observed for monthly headache days and monthly acute medication use days.
In addition, 70% of patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent during the 48 weeks of open-label treatment.
Overall safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant. “A small percentage of subjects (< 6%) discontinue the treatment because of side effects,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 5% of participants) were COVID-19 (28.7%), nasopharyngitis (10.9%), and constipation (8.2%).
As the first report of 1-year atogepant data, the results are “very encouraging” for patients and clinicians, Dr. Ashina said in wrapping up his presentation.
Important Advance, but Not Transformative
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, noted that “[w]hile the anti-CGRP medications represent an important advancement in migraine treatment, the data suggests they have not necessarily transformed the landscape as dramatically as some may have expected.
“The efficacy of the anti-CGRP drugs appears to be generally similar to previous preventive and mostly genericized treatments, offering modest but meaningful improvements in migraine frequency and severity for many patients,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“In terms of safety, the anti-CGRPs do seem to have a somewhat cleaner profile compared to earlier migraine preventives, which is certainly a positive. However, the long-term data is still emerging, so the full safety picture is not yet clear,” Dr. Lakhan added.
“These medications are also associated with significantly higher overall healthcare costs compared to other treatment approaches. The substantial cost implications, both for patients and the healthcare system, deserve careful consideration as we assess their overall value and role in migraine care going forward,” Dr. Lakhan said.
Funding was provided by AbbVie. Several investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company. Dr. Lakhan has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DENVER —
The data show that 70% of patients treated with atogepant 60 mg daily achieved at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16 and this was maintained over 48 weeks of treatment.
“This is the first long-term study for assessing the safety and efficacy of a drug belonging to the gepant class, atogepant, used in the prevention of migraine in persons with episodic migraine who did not benefit from several previous preventive treatments or with chronic migraine,” said study investigator Cristina Tassorelli, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Pavia, Italy.
“It shows consistency of efficacy over 48 weeks and confirms the known safety profile of atogepant reported in randomized controlled trials, without detecting any new signal with the open-label use over 1 year,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The results were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology by Sait Ashina, MD, with the Comprehensive Headache Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
Novel Longer-Term Data
The extension study includes more than 500 patients who completed the phase 3 PROGRESS or ELEVATE randomized placebo-controlled trials of atogepant 60 mg once daily for prevention of episodic or chronic migraine. It will run for 156 weeks.
Dr. Ashina reported safety and tolerability data at 52 weeks of treatment and efficacy data between 13 and 48 weeks of treatment. The mean duration of atogepant exposure was 496.5 days, and the mean number of migraine days at baseline was 14.5.
With atogepant, monthly migraine days improved on average by 8.5 days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent over 48 weeks, Dr. Ashina reported. Similar improvements were observed for monthly headache days and monthly acute medication use days.
In addition, 70% of patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in monthly migraine days at weeks 13-16, and this was consistent during the 48 weeks of open-label treatment.
Overall safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant. “A small percentage of subjects (< 6%) discontinue the treatment because of side effects,” Dr. Tassorelli said.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 5% of participants) were COVID-19 (28.7%), nasopharyngitis (10.9%), and constipation (8.2%).
As the first report of 1-year atogepant data, the results are “very encouraging” for patients and clinicians, Dr. Ashina said in wrapping up his presentation.
Important Advance, but Not Transformative
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, noted that “[w]hile the anti-CGRP medications represent an important advancement in migraine treatment, the data suggests they have not necessarily transformed the landscape as dramatically as some may have expected.
“The efficacy of the anti-CGRP drugs appears to be generally similar to previous preventive and mostly genericized treatments, offering modest but meaningful improvements in migraine frequency and severity for many patients,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“In terms of safety, the anti-CGRPs do seem to have a somewhat cleaner profile compared to earlier migraine preventives, which is certainly a positive. However, the long-term data is still emerging, so the full safety picture is not yet clear,” Dr. Lakhan added.
“These medications are also associated with significantly higher overall healthcare costs compared to other treatment approaches. The substantial cost implications, both for patients and the healthcare system, deserve careful consideration as we assess their overall value and role in migraine care going forward,” Dr. Lakhan said.
Funding was provided by AbbVie. Several investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company. Dr. Lakhan has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024