Pain

I recently encountered a study that reviewed return visits of pediatric patients after undergoing adenotonsillectomy. The investigators discovered that pain-related visits were higher for patients who had received prescriptions for opioids. After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning about the use of codeine in postoperative pediatric tonsillectomy with adenoidectomy (T&A), patients pain-related return visits declined and steroid prescriptions increased.

On the surface, this inverse relationship between opioid prescriptions and pain-related visits seems counterintuitive. This is particularly true if you believe that opioids are effective pain medications. The relationship between pain-related visits, steroid use, and the boxed warning is a bit easier to understand and most likely points to the effectiveness of the steroids.

Keeping in mind this was a single-institution study that included more than 5000 patients and more than 700 return visits, we should be careful in reading too much into these results. However, I can’t resist the temptation to use it as a springboard from which to launch a short dissertation on pain management.

First, let’s consider whether there was something about the opioids that was causing more pain for the patients. I’m not aware of any studies that suggest pain as a side effect of codeine. Nausea and vomiting, yes. And, although the investigators were focusing on pain, it may have been that the general discomfort associated with the gastrointestinal effects of the drug were lowering the patients’ pain threshold. I certainly know of many adults who have said that they now avoid opioids postoperatively because of the general sense of unwellness they have experienced during previous surgical adventures.

However, my bias leads me to focus on this question: If the patients didn’t receive opioids postoperatively, were they receiving something else that was making them less likely to arrive at the hospital or clinic complaining of pain? I assume the researchers would have told us about some new alternative miracle painkiller that was being prescribed.

As a card-carrying nihilist in good standing, I am tempted to claim that this is another example of nothing is better than most well-intentioned somethings. However, I am going to posit that these patients were receiving something that lessened their need to seek help with their pain.

Most likely that something was a thoughtful preemptive dialogue postoperatively about what they (and in most cases their parents) might expect in the way of symptoms. And ... an easy-to-reach contact point preferably with a person with whom they were familiar. And ... were scheduled to receive follow up phone calls at intervals relevant to the details of their surgery.

I know many of you are going to say, “We are already doing those things.” And, if so, you are to be commended. And, I’m sure that every outpatient postoperative manual includes all of those common-sense ingredients of good follow-up care. However, you know as well as I do that not all postoperative instructions are delivered with same degree of thoroughness nor with sufficient pauses thoughtfully delivered to make it a real dialogue. Nor is the follow-up contact person as easy to reach as promised.

I’m not sure how much we can thank the FDA boxed warning about codeine for the decrease in postoperative pain-generated visits. However, it could be that when physicians were discouraged from prescribing postoperative opioids, they may have felt the need to lean more heavily on good old-fashioned postoperative follow-up care. Instructions presented more as a dialogue and preemptive follow-up calls made with an aura of caring are well known deterrents of middle-of-the-night calls for help.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I recently encountered a study that reviewed return visits of pediatric patients after undergoing adenotonsillectomy. The investigators discovered that pain-related visits were higher for patients who had received prescriptions for opioids. After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning about the use of codeine in postoperative pediatric tonsillectomy with adenoidectomy (T&A), patients pain-related return visits declined and steroid prescriptions increased.

On the surface, this inverse relationship between opioid prescriptions and pain-related visits seems counterintuitive. This is particularly true if you believe that opioids are effective pain medications. The relationship between pain-related visits, steroid use, and the boxed warning is a bit easier to understand and most likely points to the effectiveness of the steroids.

Keeping in mind this was a single-institution study that included more than 5000 patients and more than 700 return visits, we should be careful in reading too much into these results. However, I can’t resist the temptation to use it as a springboard from which to launch a short dissertation on pain management.

First, let’s consider whether there was something about the opioids that was causing more pain for the patients. I’m not aware of any studies that suggest pain as a side effect of codeine. Nausea and vomiting, yes. And, although the investigators were focusing on pain, it may have been that the general discomfort associated with the gastrointestinal effects of the drug were lowering the patients’ pain threshold. I certainly know of many adults who have said that they now avoid opioids postoperatively because of the general sense of unwellness they have experienced during previous surgical adventures.

However, my bias leads me to focus on this question: If the patients didn’t receive opioids postoperatively, were they receiving something else that was making them less likely to arrive at the hospital or clinic complaining of pain? I assume the researchers would have told us about some new alternative miracle painkiller that was being prescribed.

As a card-carrying nihilist in good standing, I am tempted to claim that this is another example of nothing is better than most well-intentioned somethings. However, I am going to posit that these patients were receiving something that lessened their need to seek help with their pain.

Most likely that something was a thoughtful preemptive dialogue postoperatively about what they (and in most cases their parents) might expect in the way of symptoms. And ... an easy-to-reach contact point preferably with a person with whom they were familiar. And ... were scheduled to receive follow up phone calls at intervals relevant to the details of their surgery.

I know many of you are going to say, “We are already doing those things.” And, if so, you are to be commended. And, I’m sure that every outpatient postoperative manual includes all of those common-sense ingredients of good follow-up care. However, you know as well as I do that not all postoperative instructions are delivered with same degree of thoroughness nor with sufficient pauses thoughtfully delivered to make it a real dialogue. Nor is the follow-up contact person as easy to reach as promised.

I’m not sure how much we can thank the FDA boxed warning about codeine for the decrease in postoperative pain-generated visits. However, it could be that when physicians were discouraged from prescribing postoperative opioids, they may have felt the need to lean more heavily on good old-fashioned postoperative follow-up care. Instructions presented more as a dialogue and preemptive follow-up calls made with an aura of caring are well known deterrents of middle-of-the-night calls for help.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I recently encountered a study that reviewed return visits of pediatric patients after undergoing adenotonsillectomy. The investigators discovered that pain-related visits were higher for patients who had received prescriptions for opioids. After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning about the use of codeine in postoperative pediatric tonsillectomy with adenoidectomy (T&A), patients pain-related return visits declined and steroid prescriptions increased.

On the surface, this inverse relationship between opioid prescriptions and pain-related visits seems counterintuitive. This is particularly true if you believe that opioids are effective pain medications. The relationship between pain-related visits, steroid use, and the boxed warning is a bit easier to understand and most likely points to the effectiveness of the steroids.

Keeping in mind this was a single-institution study that included more than 5000 patients and more than 700 return visits, we should be careful in reading too much into these results. However, I can’t resist the temptation to use it as a springboard from which to launch a short dissertation on pain management.

First, let’s consider whether there was something about the opioids that was causing more pain for the patients. I’m not aware of any studies that suggest pain as a side effect of codeine. Nausea and vomiting, yes. And, although the investigators were focusing on pain, it may have been that the general discomfort associated with the gastrointestinal effects of the drug were lowering the patients’ pain threshold. I certainly know of many adults who have said that they now avoid opioids postoperatively because of the general sense of unwellness they have experienced during previous surgical adventures.

However, my bias leads me to focus on this question: If the patients didn’t receive opioids postoperatively, were they receiving something else that was making them less likely to arrive at the hospital or clinic complaining of pain? I assume the researchers would have told us about some new alternative miracle painkiller that was being prescribed.

As a card-carrying nihilist in good standing, I am tempted to claim that this is another example of nothing is better than most well-intentioned somethings. However, I am going to posit that these patients were receiving something that lessened their need to seek help with their pain.

Most likely that something was a thoughtful preemptive dialogue postoperatively about what they (and in most cases their parents) might expect in the way of symptoms. And ... an easy-to-reach contact point preferably with a person with whom they were familiar. And ... were scheduled to receive follow up phone calls at intervals relevant to the details of their surgery.

I know many of you are going to say, “We are already doing those things.” And, if so, you are to be commended. And, I’m sure that every outpatient postoperative manual includes all of those common-sense ingredients of good follow-up care. However, you know as well as I do that not all postoperative instructions are delivered with same degree of thoroughness nor with sufficient pauses thoughtfully delivered to make it a real dialogue. Nor is the follow-up contact person as easy to reach as promised.

I’m not sure how much we can thank the FDA boxed warning about codeine for the decrease in postoperative pain-generated visits. However, it could be that when physicians were discouraged from prescribing postoperative opioids, they may have felt the need to lean more heavily on good old-fashioned postoperative follow-up care. Instructions presented more as a dialogue and preemptive follow-up calls made with an aura of caring are well known deterrents of middle-of-the-night calls for help.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with placebo, administration of vocacapsaicin during bunionectomy reduces pain and decreases opioid consumption in the first 96 hours after surgery, with no local or systemic toxicity.

METHODOLOGY:

• This triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 147 patients undergoing bunionectomy.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive 14 mL of either 0.05 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.15 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.30 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, or placebo at the surgical site during wound closure. Except for the study drug, all patients received identical perioperative analgesics.
• Patients were observed for 96 hours post-surgery, with follow-up visits on days 8, 15, and 29 to monitor for pain and adverse events.
• The primary endpoint was overall levels of pain at rest through the first 96 hours after surgery for the 0.30-mg/mL vocacapsaicin group.
• The secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who did not require opioids and total opioid consumption through 96 hours, as well as pain scores during the first postoperative week.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vocacapsaicin (0.30 mg/mL) reduced pain at rest by 33% over the first 96 hours, compared with placebo (P = .005).
• Overall, 26% of patients who received the 0.30-mg/mL dose of vocacapsaicin did not require opioids through 96 hours compared with 5% of patients receiving placebo (P = .025).
• The researchers reported no difference in the rate, type, or severity of adverse events in the four study groups, consistent with typical recovery from bunionectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that intraoperative administration of vocacapsaicin may provide substantial benefits in other surgical procedures,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Steven L. Shafer, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and published in the June 2024 issue of Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of opioids was restricted from 0 to 96 hours after surgery, which did not reflect typical clinical practice. The range of vocacapsaicin concentrations tested may not have been extensive enough, as concentrations > 0.30 mg/mL might have provided better analgesia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Concentric Analgesics. Two authors declared being employed by Concentric Analgesics. Other authors declared having several ties with many sources, including the funding agency.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with placebo, administration of vocacapsaicin during bunionectomy reduces pain and decreases opioid consumption in the first 96 hours after surgery, with no local or systemic toxicity.

METHODOLOGY:

• This triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 147 patients undergoing bunionectomy.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive 14 mL of either 0.05 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.15 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.30 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, or placebo at the surgical site during wound closure. Except for the study drug, all patients received identical perioperative analgesics.
• Patients were observed for 96 hours post-surgery, with follow-up visits on days 8, 15, and 29 to monitor for pain and adverse events.
• The primary endpoint was overall levels of pain at rest through the first 96 hours after surgery for the 0.30-mg/mL vocacapsaicin group.
• The secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who did not require opioids and total opioid consumption through 96 hours, as well as pain scores during the first postoperative week.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vocacapsaicin (0.30 mg/mL) reduced pain at rest by 33% over the first 96 hours, compared with placebo (P = .005).
• Overall, 26% of patients who received the 0.30-mg/mL dose of vocacapsaicin did not require opioids through 96 hours compared with 5% of patients receiving placebo (P = .025).
• The researchers reported no difference in the rate, type, or severity of adverse events in the four study groups, consistent with typical recovery from bunionectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that intraoperative administration of vocacapsaicin may provide substantial benefits in other surgical procedures,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Steven L. Shafer, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and published in the June 2024 issue of Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of opioids was restricted from 0 to 96 hours after surgery, which did not reflect typical clinical practice. The range of vocacapsaicin concentrations tested may not have been extensive enough, as concentrations > 0.30 mg/mL might have provided better analgesia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Concentric Analgesics. Two authors declared being employed by Concentric Analgesics. Other authors declared having several ties with many sources, including the funding agency.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with placebo, administration of vocacapsaicin during bunionectomy reduces pain and decreases opioid consumption in the first 96 hours after surgery, with no local or systemic toxicity.

METHODOLOGY:

• This triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 147 patients undergoing bunionectomy.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive 14 mL of either 0.05 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.15 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.30 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, or placebo at the surgical site during wound closure. Except for the study drug, all patients received identical perioperative analgesics.
• Patients were observed for 96 hours post-surgery, with follow-up visits on days 8, 15, and 29 to monitor for pain and adverse events.
• The primary endpoint was overall levels of pain at rest through the first 96 hours after surgery for the 0.30-mg/mL vocacapsaicin group.
• The secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who did not require opioids and total opioid consumption through 96 hours, as well as pain scores during the first postoperative week.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vocacapsaicin (0.30 mg/mL) reduced pain at rest by 33% over the first 96 hours, compared with placebo (P = .005).
• Overall, 26% of patients who received the 0.30-mg/mL dose of vocacapsaicin did not require opioids through 96 hours compared with 5% of patients receiving placebo (P = .025).
• The researchers reported no difference in the rate, type, or severity of adverse events in the four study groups, consistent with typical recovery from bunionectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that intraoperative administration of vocacapsaicin may provide substantial benefits in other surgical procedures,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Steven L. Shafer, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and published in the June 2024 issue of Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of opioids was restricted from 0 to 96 hours after surgery, which did not reflect typical clinical practice. The range of vocacapsaicin concentrations tested may not have been extensive enough, as concentrations > 0.30 mg/mL might have provided better analgesia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Concentric Analgesics. Two authors declared being employed by Concentric Analgesics. Other authors declared having several ties with many sources, including the funding agency.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than two-thirds of patients with migraine also suffer from neck pain, a combination that’s linked to higher levels of various forms of disability, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.

Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.

Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”

As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”

Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
 

Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability

The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.

For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.

Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).

Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.

Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).

Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P  <  0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).

Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
 

Clinical Messages

The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.

He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.

As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.

If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.

In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”

The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”

Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.

AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.

Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.

More than two-thirds of patients with migraine also suffer from neck pain, a combination that’s linked to higher levels of various forms of disability, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.

Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.

Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”

As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”

Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
 

Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability

The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.

For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.

Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).

Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.

Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).

Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P  <  0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).

Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
 

Clinical Messages

The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.

He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.

As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.

If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.

In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”

The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”

Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.

AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.

Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.

More than two-thirds of patients with migraine also suffer from neck pain, a combination that’s linked to higher levels of various forms of disability, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.

Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.

Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”

As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”

Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
 

Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability

The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.

For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.

Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).

Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.

Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).

Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P  <  0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).

Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
 

Clinical Messages

The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.

He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.

As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.

If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.

In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”

The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”

Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.

AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.

Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.

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

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

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

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

Are We Looking at the Wrong Endpoint?

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on Redesigning Cluster Headache Clinical Trials

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

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

Are We Looking at the Wrong Endpoint?

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on Redesigning Cluster Headache Clinical Trials

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

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

Are We Looking at the Wrong Endpoint?

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on Redesigning Cluster Headache Clinical Trials

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

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

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

SAN DIEGO — In a bid to address the severe shortage of headache neurologists across the United States, the American Headache Society (AHS) has developed a program aimed at primary care physicians (PCPs) to help address the unmet demand for headache treatment and management.

It is estimated that about 4 million PCP office visits annually are headache related, and that 52.8% of all migraine encounters occur in primary care settings.

However, PCPs aren’t always adequately trained in headache management and referral times to specialist care can be lengthy.

Data published in Headache show only 564 accredited headache specialists practice in the United States, but at least 3700 headache specialists are needed to treat those affected by migraine, with even more needed to address other disabling headache types such as tension-type headache and cluster headache. To keep up with population growth, it is estimated that the United States will require 4500 headache specialists by 2040.
 

First Contact

To tackle this specialist shortfall, the AHS developed the First Contact program with the aim of improving headache education in primary care and help alleviate at least some of the demand for specialist care.

The national program was rolled out in 2020 and 2021. The educational symposia were delivered to PCPs at multiple locations across the country. The initiative also included a comprehensive website with numerous support resources.

After participating in the initiative, attendees were surveyed about the value of the program, and the results were subsequently analyzed and presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The analysis included 636 survey respondents, a 38% response rate. Almost all participants (96%) were MDs and DOs. The remainder included nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and dentists.

About 85.6% of respondents reported being completely or very confident in their ability to recognize and accurately diagnose headache disorders, and 81.3% said they were completely or very confident in their ability to create tailored treatment plans.

Just over 90% of participants reported they would implement practice changes as a result of the program. The most commonly cited change was the use of diagnostic tools such as the three-question Migraine ID screener, followed closely by consideration of prescribing triptans and reducing the use of unnecessary neuroimaging.

“Overall, there was a positive response to this type of educational programming and interest in ongoing education in addressing headache disorders with both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatment options,” said Nisha Malhotra, MD, a resident at New York University (NYU) Langone Health, New York City, who presented the findings at the conference.

The fact that so many general practitioners were keen to use this easy-to-use screen [Migraine ID screener], which can pick up about 90% of people with migraine, is “great,” said study investigator Mia Minen, MD, associate professor and chief of headache research at NYU Langone Health. “I’m pleased primary care providers said they were considering implementing this simple tool.”

However, respondents also cited barriers to change. These included cost constraints (48.9%), insurance reimbursement issues (48.6%), and lack of time (45.3%). Dr. Malhotra noted these concerns are primarily related to workflow rather than knowledge gaps or lack of training.

“This is exciting in that there doesn’t seem to be an issue with education primarily but rather with the logistical issues that exist in the workflow in a primary care setting,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Participants also noted the need for other improvements. For example, they expressed interest in differentiating migraine from other headache types and having a better understanding of how and when to refer to specialists, said Dr. Malhotra.

These practitioners also want to know more about treatment options beyond first-line medications. “They were interested in understanding more advanced medication treatment options beyond just the typical triptan,” said Dr. Malhotra.

In addition, they want to become more skilled in non-pharmaceutical options such as occipital nerve blocks and in massage, acupuncture, and other complementary forms of migraine management, she said.

The study may be vulnerable to sampling bias as survey participants had just attended an educational symposium on headaches. “They were already, to some degree, interested in improving their knowledge on headache,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Another study limitation was that researchers didn’t conduct a pre-survey analysis to determine changes as a result of the symposia. And as the survey was conducted so close to the symposium, “it’s difficult to draw conclusions on the long-term effects,” she added.

“That being said, First Contact is one of the first national initiatives for primary care education, and thus far, it has been very well received.”

The next step is to continue expanding the program and to create a First Contact for women and First Contact for pediatrics, said Dr. Minen.
 

Improved Diagnosis, Better Care

Commenting on the initiative, Juliana VanderPluym, MD, a headache specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who co-chaired the session where the survey results were presented, said it helps address the supply-demand imbalance in headache healthcare.

“Many, many people have headache disorders, and very few people are technically headache specialists, so we have to rely on our colleagues in primary care to help address the great need that’s out there for patients with headache disorders.”

Too many patients don’t get a proper diagnosis or appropriate treatment, said Dr. VanderPluym, so as time passes, “diseases can become more chronic and more refractory, and it affects people’s quality of life and productivity.”

The First Contact program, she said, helps increase providers’ comfort and confidence that they are providing the best patient care possible and lead to a reduction in the need for specialist referrals.

Dr. Minen serves on the First Contact advisory board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In a bid to address the severe shortage of headache neurologists across the United States, the American Headache Society (AHS) has developed a program aimed at primary care physicians (PCPs) to help address the unmet demand for headache treatment and management.

It is estimated that about 4 million PCP office visits annually are headache related, and that 52.8% of all migraine encounters occur in primary care settings.

However, PCPs aren’t always adequately trained in headache management and referral times to specialist care can be lengthy.

Data published in Headache show only 564 accredited headache specialists practice in the United States, but at least 3700 headache specialists are needed to treat those affected by migraine, with even more needed to address other disabling headache types such as tension-type headache and cluster headache. To keep up with population growth, it is estimated that the United States will require 4500 headache specialists by 2040.
 

First Contact

To tackle this specialist shortfall, the AHS developed the First Contact program with the aim of improving headache education in primary care and help alleviate at least some of the demand for specialist care.

The national program was rolled out in 2020 and 2021. The educational symposia were delivered to PCPs at multiple locations across the country. The initiative also included a comprehensive website with numerous support resources.

After participating in the initiative, attendees were surveyed about the value of the program, and the results were subsequently analyzed and presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The analysis included 636 survey respondents, a 38% response rate. Almost all participants (96%) were MDs and DOs. The remainder included nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and dentists.

About 85.6% of respondents reported being completely or very confident in their ability to recognize and accurately diagnose headache disorders, and 81.3% said they were completely or very confident in their ability to create tailored treatment plans.

Just over 90% of participants reported they would implement practice changes as a result of the program. The most commonly cited change was the use of diagnostic tools such as the three-question Migraine ID screener, followed closely by consideration of prescribing triptans and reducing the use of unnecessary neuroimaging.

“Overall, there was a positive response to this type of educational programming and interest in ongoing education in addressing headache disorders with both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatment options,” said Nisha Malhotra, MD, a resident at New York University (NYU) Langone Health, New York City, who presented the findings at the conference.

The fact that so many general practitioners were keen to use this easy-to-use screen [Migraine ID screener], which can pick up about 90% of people with migraine, is “great,” said study investigator Mia Minen, MD, associate professor and chief of headache research at NYU Langone Health. “I’m pleased primary care providers said they were considering implementing this simple tool.”

However, respondents also cited barriers to change. These included cost constraints (48.9%), insurance reimbursement issues (48.6%), and lack of time (45.3%). Dr. Malhotra noted these concerns are primarily related to workflow rather than knowledge gaps or lack of training.

“This is exciting in that there doesn’t seem to be an issue with education primarily but rather with the logistical issues that exist in the workflow in a primary care setting,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Participants also noted the need for other improvements. For example, they expressed interest in differentiating migraine from other headache types and having a better understanding of how and when to refer to specialists, said Dr. Malhotra.

These practitioners also want to know more about treatment options beyond first-line medications. “They were interested in understanding more advanced medication treatment options beyond just the typical triptan,” said Dr. Malhotra.

In addition, they want to become more skilled in non-pharmaceutical options such as occipital nerve blocks and in massage, acupuncture, and other complementary forms of migraine management, she said.

The study may be vulnerable to sampling bias as survey participants had just attended an educational symposium on headaches. “They were already, to some degree, interested in improving their knowledge on headache,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Another study limitation was that researchers didn’t conduct a pre-survey analysis to determine changes as a result of the symposia. And as the survey was conducted so close to the symposium, “it’s difficult to draw conclusions on the long-term effects,” she added.

“That being said, First Contact is one of the first national initiatives for primary care education, and thus far, it has been very well received.”

The next step is to continue expanding the program and to create a First Contact for women and First Contact for pediatrics, said Dr. Minen.
 

Improved Diagnosis, Better Care

Commenting on the initiative, Juliana VanderPluym, MD, a headache specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who co-chaired the session where the survey results were presented, said it helps address the supply-demand imbalance in headache healthcare.

“Many, many people have headache disorders, and very few people are technically headache specialists, so we have to rely on our colleagues in primary care to help address the great need that’s out there for patients with headache disorders.”

Too many patients don’t get a proper diagnosis or appropriate treatment, said Dr. VanderPluym, so as time passes, “diseases can become more chronic and more refractory, and it affects people’s quality of life and productivity.”

The First Contact program, she said, helps increase providers’ comfort and confidence that they are providing the best patient care possible and lead to a reduction in the need for specialist referrals.

Dr. Minen serves on the First Contact advisory board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In a bid to address the severe shortage of headache neurologists across the United States, the American Headache Society (AHS) has developed a program aimed at primary care physicians (PCPs) to help address the unmet demand for headache treatment and management.

It is estimated that about 4 million PCP office visits annually are headache related, and that 52.8% of all migraine encounters occur in primary care settings.

However, PCPs aren’t always adequately trained in headache management and referral times to specialist care can be lengthy.

Data published in Headache show only 564 accredited headache specialists practice in the United States, but at least 3700 headache specialists are needed to treat those affected by migraine, with even more needed to address other disabling headache types such as tension-type headache and cluster headache. To keep up with population growth, it is estimated that the United States will require 4500 headache specialists by 2040.
 

First Contact

To tackle this specialist shortfall, the AHS developed the First Contact program with the aim of improving headache education in primary care and help alleviate at least some of the demand for specialist care.

The national program was rolled out in 2020 and 2021. The educational symposia were delivered to PCPs at multiple locations across the country. The initiative also included a comprehensive website with numerous support resources.

After participating in the initiative, attendees were surveyed about the value of the program, and the results were subsequently analyzed and presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The analysis included 636 survey respondents, a 38% response rate. Almost all participants (96%) were MDs and DOs. The remainder included nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and dentists.

About 85.6% of respondents reported being completely or very confident in their ability to recognize and accurately diagnose headache disorders, and 81.3% said they were completely or very confident in their ability to create tailored treatment plans.

Just over 90% of participants reported they would implement practice changes as a result of the program. The most commonly cited change was the use of diagnostic tools such as the three-question Migraine ID screener, followed closely by consideration of prescribing triptans and reducing the use of unnecessary neuroimaging.

“Overall, there was a positive response to this type of educational programming and interest in ongoing education in addressing headache disorders with both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatment options,” said Nisha Malhotra, MD, a resident at New York University (NYU) Langone Health, New York City, who presented the findings at the conference.

The fact that so many general practitioners were keen to use this easy-to-use screen [Migraine ID screener], which can pick up about 90% of people with migraine, is “great,” said study investigator Mia Minen, MD, associate professor and chief of headache research at NYU Langone Health. “I’m pleased primary care providers said they were considering implementing this simple tool.”

However, respondents also cited barriers to change. These included cost constraints (48.9%), insurance reimbursement issues (48.6%), and lack of time (45.3%). Dr. Malhotra noted these concerns are primarily related to workflow rather than knowledge gaps or lack of training.

“This is exciting in that there doesn’t seem to be an issue with education primarily but rather with the logistical issues that exist in the workflow in a primary care setting,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Participants also noted the need for other improvements. For example, they expressed interest in differentiating migraine from other headache types and having a better understanding of how and when to refer to specialists, said Dr. Malhotra.

These practitioners also want to know more about treatment options beyond first-line medications. “They were interested in understanding more advanced medication treatment options beyond just the typical triptan,” said Dr. Malhotra.

In addition, they want to become more skilled in non-pharmaceutical options such as occipital nerve blocks and in massage, acupuncture, and other complementary forms of migraine management, she said.

The study may be vulnerable to sampling bias as survey participants had just attended an educational symposium on headaches. “They were already, to some degree, interested in improving their knowledge on headache,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Another study limitation was that researchers didn’t conduct a pre-survey analysis to determine changes as a result of the symposia. And as the survey was conducted so close to the symposium, “it’s difficult to draw conclusions on the long-term effects,” she added.

“That being said, First Contact is one of the first national initiatives for primary care education, and thus far, it has been very well received.”

The next step is to continue expanding the program and to create a First Contact for women and First Contact for pediatrics, said Dr. Minen.
 

Improved Diagnosis, Better Care

Commenting on the initiative, Juliana VanderPluym, MD, a headache specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who co-chaired the session where the survey results were presented, said it helps address the supply-demand imbalance in headache healthcare.

“Many, many people have headache disorders, and very few people are technically headache specialists, so we have to rely on our colleagues in primary care to help address the great need that’s out there for patients with headache disorders.”

Too many patients don’t get a proper diagnosis or appropriate treatment, said Dr. VanderPluym, so as time passes, “diseases can become more chronic and more refractory, and it affects people’s quality of life and productivity.”

The First Contact program, she said, helps increase providers’ comfort and confidence that they are providing the best patient care possible and lead to a reduction in the need for specialist referrals.

Dr. Minen serves on the First Contact advisory board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A single course of treatment with emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET) was associated with a significantly greater reduction in chronic pain severity than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the current psychotherapeutic gold standard, a new study suggested.

Two thirds of the patients who received EAET reported at least a 30% reduction in pain compared with 17% of those who received CBT. The randomized clinical trial also showed that individuals with depression and anxiety responded more favorably to EAET, a novel finding.

The study is one of only a few to directly compare EAET with CBT.

“Most people with chronic pain don’t consider psychotherapy at all,” said study investigator Brandon C. Yarns, MD, a staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and clinical professor of health sciences at the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Health.

Although patients were allowed to continue medication for pain and other comorbidities during the study, those who received EAET “had larger improvements in pain, depression, and anxiety,” Dr. Yarns said. “That suggests that the effect was due to the EAET.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Gold Standard’

EAET was first used in the early 2010s. In the therapy, patients are asked to recall a difficult or traumatic memory, engage in experiencing how the related emotions feel in the body, express those feelings in words, and release or let them go. They are taught that the brain’s perception of pain is strongly influenced by the evasion of grief, fear, rage, or guilt, Dr. Yarns said.

This contrasts with CBT — considered the current gold standard for chronic pain — which teaches patients to improve the ability to tolerate pain though guided imagery, muscle relaxation, and other exercises and to adapt their thinking to change how they think about pain.

Although prior studies suggested EAET is effective in reducing pain in fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal, pelvic, and head pain, most included primarily younger, female patients.

The research is the “first full-scale evaluation of EAET, to our knowledge, in a medically or psychiatrically complex, racially and ethnically diverse, older sample comprising predominantly men,” investigators wrote.

The trial enrolled 126 veterans (92% men; 55% Black or African American) aged 60-95 years with at least 3 months of musculoskeletal pain. More than two thirds of patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, with about one third having posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Almost all had back pain, and many had pain in multiple locations.

All services were delivered in-person at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles. Half underwent CBT, while the other half received EAET.

Each patient had one 90-minute individual session and eight additional 90-minute group sessions.

Patients were asked to rate their pain using a 0-10 scale in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) before starting treatment, at the end of the nine sessions (at week 10), and 6 months after the sessions ended. Baseline BPI score for both groups was a mean of around 6.

Post treatment, people in the EAET versus CBT group had a mean two-point reduction versus 0.60 reduction, respectively, on the BPI scale. A clinically significant reduction in pain — defined as ≥ 30% decrease — was reported in 63% of EAET patients versus 17% of CBT patients (odds ratio [OR], 21.54; P < .001).

At 6 months, the mean reduction was 1.2 for the EAET group compared with 0.25 for the CBT group, and 40% of the EAET group reported a clinically significant reduction in pain.

A little more than a third (35%) of veterans receiving EAET reported at least a 50% reduction in pain at 10 weeks compared with 7% of those receiving CBT. At 6 months, 16% of the EAET arm reported a halving of their pain.

EAET was also superior to CBT in reducing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms at the 10-week mark.
 

More Work Needed

In an accompanying editorial, Matthias Karst, MD, PhD, a clinician with the Pain Clinic, Hannover Medical School, in Hannover, Germany, noted that EAET’s effects “are significantly superior to those of CBT in almost all dimensions, even after 6 months.”

EAET “assigns a special place to the integration of the body into the emotional experience,” he wrote.

The study demonstrated that “the evocation and expression of emotions is superior to the mere cognitive discussion of these emotions in therapy of patients with chronic pain.”

Commenting on the findings, Traci J. Speed, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and an attending psychiatrist of the Johns Hopkins Pain Treatment Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the study “ground-breaking” because it showed effectiveness in people with high rates of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

“It is a little bit surprising how impressive the study outcomes are in terms of maintaining the effects at the end of the treatment and sustaining some of the effects on pain sensitivity even at the 6-month follow-up,” said Dr. Speed, who was not part of the study.

However, she continued, “I don’t think it changes the current standard of practice yet. CBT has decades of research and evidence that it is effective for chronic pain and that will I think continue to be the standard of care.”

Although EAET is in its infancy, chronic pain experts are interested in learning more about the therapy, Dr. Speed added.

“It blends well with the current techniques and extends the current gold standard treatment approaches,” she said. “We are starting to really appreciate the role that emotions play in pain sensitivity.”

Both Dr. Karst and Dr. Speed noted that more study is needed to determine the sustainability of treatment effects.

Dr. Yarns agreed. “We need more research on what the appropriate dose is and perhaps how one might go about personalizing that for the patient,” he said.

The study was funded by a career development award to Dr. Yarns from the VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service. Dr. Yarns reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs during the study. Other authors’ disclosures are in the original article. Dr. Speed reported no conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A single course of treatment with emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET) was associated with a significantly greater reduction in chronic pain severity than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the current psychotherapeutic gold standard, a new study suggested.

Two thirds of the patients who received EAET reported at least a 30% reduction in pain compared with 17% of those who received CBT. The randomized clinical trial also showed that individuals with depression and anxiety responded more favorably to EAET, a novel finding.

The study is one of only a few to directly compare EAET with CBT.

“Most people with chronic pain don’t consider psychotherapy at all,” said study investigator Brandon C. Yarns, MD, a staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and clinical professor of health sciences at the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Health.

Although patients were allowed to continue medication for pain and other comorbidities during the study, those who received EAET “had larger improvements in pain, depression, and anxiety,” Dr. Yarns said. “That suggests that the effect was due to the EAET.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Gold Standard’

EAET was first used in the early 2010s. In the therapy, patients are asked to recall a difficult or traumatic memory, engage in experiencing how the related emotions feel in the body, express those feelings in words, and release or let them go. They are taught that the brain’s perception of pain is strongly influenced by the evasion of grief, fear, rage, or guilt, Dr. Yarns said.

This contrasts with CBT — considered the current gold standard for chronic pain — which teaches patients to improve the ability to tolerate pain though guided imagery, muscle relaxation, and other exercises and to adapt their thinking to change how they think about pain.

Although prior studies suggested EAET is effective in reducing pain in fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal, pelvic, and head pain, most included primarily younger, female patients.

The research is the “first full-scale evaluation of EAET, to our knowledge, in a medically or psychiatrically complex, racially and ethnically diverse, older sample comprising predominantly men,” investigators wrote.

The trial enrolled 126 veterans (92% men; 55% Black or African American) aged 60-95 years with at least 3 months of musculoskeletal pain. More than two thirds of patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, with about one third having posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Almost all had back pain, and many had pain in multiple locations.

All services were delivered in-person at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles. Half underwent CBT, while the other half received EAET.

Each patient had one 90-minute individual session and eight additional 90-minute group sessions.

Patients were asked to rate their pain using a 0-10 scale in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) before starting treatment, at the end of the nine sessions (at week 10), and 6 months after the sessions ended. Baseline BPI score for both groups was a mean of around 6.

Post treatment, people in the EAET versus CBT group had a mean two-point reduction versus 0.60 reduction, respectively, on the BPI scale. A clinically significant reduction in pain — defined as ≥ 30% decrease — was reported in 63% of EAET patients versus 17% of CBT patients (odds ratio [OR], 21.54; P < .001).

At 6 months, the mean reduction was 1.2 for the EAET group compared with 0.25 for the CBT group, and 40% of the EAET group reported a clinically significant reduction in pain.

A little more than a third (35%) of veterans receiving EAET reported at least a 50% reduction in pain at 10 weeks compared with 7% of those receiving CBT. At 6 months, 16% of the EAET arm reported a halving of their pain.

EAET was also superior to CBT in reducing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms at the 10-week mark.
 

More Work Needed

In an accompanying editorial, Matthias Karst, MD, PhD, a clinician with the Pain Clinic, Hannover Medical School, in Hannover, Germany, noted that EAET’s effects “are significantly superior to those of CBT in almost all dimensions, even after 6 months.”

EAET “assigns a special place to the integration of the body into the emotional experience,” he wrote.

The study demonstrated that “the evocation and expression of emotions is superior to the mere cognitive discussion of these emotions in therapy of patients with chronic pain.”

Commenting on the findings, Traci J. Speed, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and an attending psychiatrist of the Johns Hopkins Pain Treatment Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the study “ground-breaking” because it showed effectiveness in people with high rates of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

“It is a little bit surprising how impressive the study outcomes are in terms of maintaining the effects at the end of the treatment and sustaining some of the effects on pain sensitivity even at the 6-month follow-up,” said Dr. Speed, who was not part of the study.

However, she continued, “I don’t think it changes the current standard of practice yet. CBT has decades of research and evidence that it is effective for chronic pain and that will I think continue to be the standard of care.”

Although EAET is in its infancy, chronic pain experts are interested in learning more about the therapy, Dr. Speed added.

“It blends well with the current techniques and extends the current gold standard treatment approaches,” she said. “We are starting to really appreciate the role that emotions play in pain sensitivity.”

Both Dr. Karst and Dr. Speed noted that more study is needed to determine the sustainability of treatment effects.

Dr. Yarns agreed. “We need more research on what the appropriate dose is and perhaps how one might go about personalizing that for the patient,” he said.

The study was funded by a career development award to Dr. Yarns from the VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service. Dr. Yarns reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs during the study. Other authors’ disclosures are in the original article. Dr. Speed reported no conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A single course of treatment with emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET) was associated with a significantly greater reduction in chronic pain severity than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the current psychotherapeutic gold standard, a new study suggested.

Two thirds of the patients who received EAET reported at least a 30% reduction in pain compared with 17% of those who received CBT. The randomized clinical trial also showed that individuals with depression and anxiety responded more favorably to EAET, a novel finding.

The study is one of only a few to directly compare EAET with CBT.

“Most people with chronic pain don’t consider psychotherapy at all,” said study investigator Brandon C. Yarns, MD, a staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and clinical professor of health sciences at the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Health.

Although patients were allowed to continue medication for pain and other comorbidities during the study, those who received EAET “had larger improvements in pain, depression, and anxiety,” Dr. Yarns said. “That suggests that the effect was due to the EAET.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Gold Standard’

EAET was first used in the early 2010s. In the therapy, patients are asked to recall a difficult or traumatic memory, engage in experiencing how the related emotions feel in the body, express those feelings in words, and release or let them go. They are taught that the brain’s perception of pain is strongly influenced by the evasion of grief, fear, rage, or guilt, Dr. Yarns said.

This contrasts with CBT — considered the current gold standard for chronic pain — which teaches patients to improve the ability to tolerate pain though guided imagery, muscle relaxation, and other exercises and to adapt their thinking to change how they think about pain.

Although prior studies suggested EAET is effective in reducing pain in fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal, pelvic, and head pain, most included primarily younger, female patients.

The research is the “first full-scale evaluation of EAET, to our knowledge, in a medically or psychiatrically complex, racially and ethnically diverse, older sample comprising predominantly men,” investigators wrote.

The trial enrolled 126 veterans (92% men; 55% Black or African American) aged 60-95 years with at least 3 months of musculoskeletal pain. More than two thirds of patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, with about one third having posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Almost all had back pain, and many had pain in multiple locations.

All services were delivered in-person at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles. Half underwent CBT, while the other half received EAET.

Each patient had one 90-minute individual session and eight additional 90-minute group sessions.

Patients were asked to rate their pain using a 0-10 scale in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) before starting treatment, at the end of the nine sessions (at week 10), and 6 months after the sessions ended. Baseline BPI score for both groups was a mean of around 6.

Post treatment, people in the EAET versus CBT group had a mean two-point reduction versus 0.60 reduction, respectively, on the BPI scale. A clinically significant reduction in pain — defined as ≥ 30% decrease — was reported in 63% of EAET patients versus 17% of CBT patients (odds ratio [OR], 21.54; P < .001).

At 6 months, the mean reduction was 1.2 for the EAET group compared with 0.25 for the CBT group, and 40% of the EAET group reported a clinically significant reduction in pain.

A little more than a third (35%) of veterans receiving EAET reported at least a 50% reduction in pain at 10 weeks compared with 7% of those receiving CBT. At 6 months, 16% of the EAET arm reported a halving of their pain.

EAET was also superior to CBT in reducing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms at the 10-week mark.
 

More Work Needed

In an accompanying editorial, Matthias Karst, MD, PhD, a clinician with the Pain Clinic, Hannover Medical School, in Hannover, Germany, noted that EAET’s effects “are significantly superior to those of CBT in almost all dimensions, even after 6 months.”

EAET “assigns a special place to the integration of the body into the emotional experience,” he wrote.

The study demonstrated that “the evocation and expression of emotions is superior to the mere cognitive discussion of these emotions in therapy of patients with chronic pain.”

Commenting on the findings, Traci J. Speed, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and an attending psychiatrist of the Johns Hopkins Pain Treatment Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the study “ground-breaking” because it showed effectiveness in people with high rates of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

“It is a little bit surprising how impressive the study outcomes are in terms of maintaining the effects at the end of the treatment and sustaining some of the effects on pain sensitivity even at the 6-month follow-up,” said Dr. Speed, who was not part of the study.

However, she continued, “I don’t think it changes the current standard of practice yet. CBT has decades of research and evidence that it is effective for chronic pain and that will I think continue to be the standard of care.”

Although EAET is in its infancy, chronic pain experts are interested in learning more about the therapy, Dr. Speed added.

“It blends well with the current techniques and extends the current gold standard treatment approaches,” she said. “We are starting to really appreciate the role that emotions play in pain sensitivity.”

Both Dr. Karst and Dr. Speed noted that more study is needed to determine the sustainability of treatment effects.

Dr. Yarns agreed. “We need more research on what the appropriate dose is and perhaps how one might go about personalizing that for the patient,” he said.

The study was funded by a career development award to Dr. Yarns from the VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service. Dr. Yarns reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs during the study. Other authors’ disclosures are in the original article. Dr. Speed reported no conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Nearly one in three patients with migraine are reluctant to seek medical help and many blame healthcare providers, results of a recent survey showed.

Participants cited concerns that their complaints would be dismissed, a belief that healthcare providers could offer no additional help, and a prior unsuccessful clinician visit as reasons for not seeking care. Survey respondents saw an average of four clinicians before finally receiving a diagnosis.

“I was shocked that a third of patients were reluctant to seek care,” said study investigator Elizabeth K. Seng, PhD, associate professor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, and research associate professor, department of neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. “That just shows a much higher level of medical distress than I expected from this community of people who are obviously suffering from this significant neurologic disease.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

‘Significant Disease’

The study included 500 adults with migraine (mean age, 40 years) who signed up for a patient support group sponsored by Eli Lilly and completed a comprehensive survey. Respondents were mostly female, White, non-Hispanic, and well-educated individuals.

Half of participants had episodic migraines, and half had chronic migraines; 46% reported experiencing anxiety and 33% reported depression.

Almost all respondents had initiated treatment with a first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody.

“These are people who have significant enough disease that eventually they needed our top-tier preventive medication,” Dr. Seng said.

Participants answered a variety of questions pertaining to disease factors and treatment seeking. Just over 70% said they suspected they had migraine prior to diagnosis, “which means for almost 30%, it was a surprise when they received the diagnosis,” said Dr. Seng. 

Nearly 40% reported that a relative first suggested they may have migraine, and 33% suspected it themselves. Only 17.4% said a healthcare provider suggested they may have the condition.

Almost a third of respondents (30.5%) reported they were reluctant to seek medical help.

“Some said they didn’t think their physician could do anything more than they were already doing for themselves, or that they’d be taken seriously, or they had had talked to doctors before and this wasn’t helpful,” said Dr. Seng. 

These responses speak to the need for better public health messaging, she said. “People have this idea that migraine attacks aren’t a big deal when, in fact, these attacks area big deal and certainly deserve treatment.” 

Family and friends were participants’ most common source of information on migraine, followed by the Internet. “This highlights the importance of getting migraine-related information out there so that when people talk to their friends and family, they’re receiving accurate information,” said Dr. Seng.

When asked about the path to a diagnosis, respondents reported consulting an average of four providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis. “That’s pretty remarkable,” Dr. Seng said.

An increase in frequency or severity of migraine attacks or attacks that interfered with work or school “pushed people over the threshold to seek care,” Dr. Seng said. 

A subset of patients was asked about the factors they believed could help with migraine attacks. Of these, 80% cited diet and 70% stress reduction. Supplements, exercise, and relaxation techniques were cited much less frequently, said Dr. Seng. 

The mean age of respondents’ migraine diagnosis was 26 years, so there was about 18 years from the time of diagnosis to participation in the survey, which could introduce recall bias. Other potential limitations included the fact that the survey had no open-ended questions, and men and ethnic minorities were underrepresented. 
 

Useful Data

Commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, president, Brain Performance Center and Research Institute, and director of the Headache Center at The Neuron Clinic, San Diego, California, said the survey findings are “very useful” and highlight “significant opportunities for improvement in migraine education for clinicians and people living with migraine disease.”

The fact that participants reported consulting an average of four healthcare providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis underscores the importance of providing clinicians with tools to identify migraine, she said.

This is especially relevant as new migraine therapies that may improve efficacy and have fewer side effects become available, she added. 

“It would be interesting to see in future studies if migraine recognition by non-headache specialists improved after CGRP-blocking medications for migraine management became available,” said Dr. Riggins, who is cochair of the AHS First Contact program which is aimed at improving headache management in primary care.

She added that she and her colleagues will keep these survey results in mind when creating future educational materials for clinicians.

The study was supported by Eli Lily. Dr. Seng is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Theranica, and Abbvie, and receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Veterans Health Administration, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Riggins reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Nearly one in three patients with migraine are reluctant to seek medical help and many blame healthcare providers, results of a recent survey showed.

Participants cited concerns that their complaints would be dismissed, a belief that healthcare providers could offer no additional help, and a prior unsuccessful clinician visit as reasons for not seeking care. Survey respondents saw an average of four clinicians before finally receiving a diagnosis.

“I was shocked that a third of patients were reluctant to seek care,” said study investigator Elizabeth K. Seng, PhD, associate professor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, and research associate professor, department of neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. “That just shows a much higher level of medical distress than I expected from this community of people who are obviously suffering from this significant neurologic disease.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

‘Significant Disease’

The study included 500 adults with migraine (mean age, 40 years) who signed up for a patient support group sponsored by Eli Lilly and completed a comprehensive survey. Respondents were mostly female, White, non-Hispanic, and well-educated individuals.

Half of participants had episodic migraines, and half had chronic migraines; 46% reported experiencing anxiety and 33% reported depression.

Almost all respondents had initiated treatment with a first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody.

“These are people who have significant enough disease that eventually they needed our top-tier preventive medication,” Dr. Seng said.

Participants answered a variety of questions pertaining to disease factors and treatment seeking. Just over 70% said they suspected they had migraine prior to diagnosis, “which means for almost 30%, it was a surprise when they received the diagnosis,” said Dr. Seng. 

Nearly 40% reported that a relative first suggested they may have migraine, and 33% suspected it themselves. Only 17.4% said a healthcare provider suggested they may have the condition.

Almost a third of respondents (30.5%) reported they were reluctant to seek medical help.

“Some said they didn’t think their physician could do anything more than they were already doing for themselves, or that they’d be taken seriously, or they had had talked to doctors before and this wasn’t helpful,” said Dr. Seng. 

These responses speak to the need for better public health messaging, she said. “People have this idea that migraine attacks aren’t a big deal when, in fact, these attacks area big deal and certainly deserve treatment.” 

Family and friends were participants’ most common source of information on migraine, followed by the Internet. “This highlights the importance of getting migraine-related information out there so that when people talk to their friends and family, they’re receiving accurate information,” said Dr. Seng.

When asked about the path to a diagnosis, respondents reported consulting an average of four providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis. “That’s pretty remarkable,” Dr. Seng said.

An increase in frequency or severity of migraine attacks or attacks that interfered with work or school “pushed people over the threshold to seek care,” Dr. Seng said. 

A subset of patients was asked about the factors they believed could help with migraine attacks. Of these, 80% cited diet and 70% stress reduction. Supplements, exercise, and relaxation techniques were cited much less frequently, said Dr. Seng. 

The mean age of respondents’ migraine diagnosis was 26 years, so there was about 18 years from the time of diagnosis to participation in the survey, which could introduce recall bias. Other potential limitations included the fact that the survey had no open-ended questions, and men and ethnic minorities were underrepresented. 
 

Useful Data

Commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, president, Brain Performance Center and Research Institute, and director of the Headache Center at The Neuron Clinic, San Diego, California, said the survey findings are “very useful” and highlight “significant opportunities for improvement in migraine education for clinicians and people living with migraine disease.”

The fact that participants reported consulting an average of four healthcare providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis underscores the importance of providing clinicians with tools to identify migraine, she said.

This is especially relevant as new migraine therapies that may improve efficacy and have fewer side effects become available, she added. 

“It would be interesting to see in future studies if migraine recognition by non-headache specialists improved after CGRP-blocking medications for migraine management became available,” said Dr. Riggins, who is cochair of the AHS First Contact program which is aimed at improving headache management in primary care.

She added that she and her colleagues will keep these survey results in mind when creating future educational materials for clinicians.

The study was supported by Eli Lily. Dr. Seng is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Theranica, and Abbvie, and receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Veterans Health Administration, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Riggins reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Nearly one in three patients with migraine are reluctant to seek medical help and many blame healthcare providers, results of a recent survey showed.

Participants cited concerns that their complaints would be dismissed, a belief that healthcare providers could offer no additional help, and a prior unsuccessful clinician visit as reasons for not seeking care. Survey respondents saw an average of four clinicians before finally receiving a diagnosis.

“I was shocked that a third of patients were reluctant to seek care,” said study investigator Elizabeth K. Seng, PhD, associate professor, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, and research associate professor, department of neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. “That just shows a much higher level of medical distress than I expected from this community of people who are obviously suffering from this significant neurologic disease.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
 

‘Significant Disease’

The study included 500 adults with migraine (mean age, 40 years) who signed up for a patient support group sponsored by Eli Lilly and completed a comprehensive survey. Respondents were mostly female, White, non-Hispanic, and well-educated individuals.

Half of participants had episodic migraines, and half had chronic migraines; 46% reported experiencing anxiety and 33% reported depression.

Almost all respondents had initiated treatment with a first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody.

“These are people who have significant enough disease that eventually they needed our top-tier preventive medication,” Dr. Seng said.

Participants answered a variety of questions pertaining to disease factors and treatment seeking. Just over 70% said they suspected they had migraine prior to diagnosis, “which means for almost 30%, it was a surprise when they received the diagnosis,” said Dr. Seng. 

Nearly 40% reported that a relative first suggested they may have migraine, and 33% suspected it themselves. Only 17.4% said a healthcare provider suggested they may have the condition.

Almost a third of respondents (30.5%) reported they were reluctant to seek medical help.

“Some said they didn’t think their physician could do anything more than they were already doing for themselves, or that they’d be taken seriously, or they had had talked to doctors before and this wasn’t helpful,” said Dr. Seng. 

These responses speak to the need for better public health messaging, she said. “People have this idea that migraine attacks aren’t a big deal when, in fact, these attacks area big deal and certainly deserve treatment.” 

Family and friends were participants’ most common source of information on migraine, followed by the Internet. “This highlights the importance of getting migraine-related information out there so that when people talk to their friends and family, they’re receiving accurate information,” said Dr. Seng.

When asked about the path to a diagnosis, respondents reported consulting an average of four providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis. “That’s pretty remarkable,” Dr. Seng said.

An increase in frequency or severity of migraine attacks or attacks that interfered with work or school “pushed people over the threshold to seek care,” Dr. Seng said. 

A subset of patients was asked about the factors they believed could help with migraine attacks. Of these, 80% cited diet and 70% stress reduction. Supplements, exercise, and relaxation techniques were cited much less frequently, said Dr. Seng. 

The mean age of respondents’ migraine diagnosis was 26 years, so there was about 18 years from the time of diagnosis to participation in the survey, which could introduce recall bias. Other potential limitations included the fact that the survey had no open-ended questions, and men and ethnic minorities were underrepresented. 
 

Useful Data

Commenting on the study findings, Nina Riggins, MD, PhD, president, Brain Performance Center and Research Institute, and director of the Headache Center at The Neuron Clinic, San Diego, California, said the survey findings are “very useful” and highlight “significant opportunities for improvement in migraine education for clinicians and people living with migraine disease.”

The fact that participants reported consulting an average of four healthcare providers before receiving an accurate diagnosis underscores the importance of providing clinicians with tools to identify migraine, she said.

This is especially relevant as new migraine therapies that may improve efficacy and have fewer side effects become available, she added. 

“It would be interesting to see in future studies if migraine recognition by non-headache specialists improved after CGRP-blocking medications for migraine management became available,” said Dr. Riggins, who is cochair of the AHS First Contact program which is aimed at improving headache management in primary care.

She added that she and her colleagues will keep these survey results in mind when creating future educational materials for clinicians.

The study was supported by Eli Lily. Dr. Seng is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Theranica, and Abbvie, and receives research support from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Veterans Health Administration, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Dr. Riggins reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

High-frequency electric nerve block significantly reduced postamputation pain in a new study, presenting a potential new therapeutic option for amputees.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study enrolled 180 patients with unilateral lower limb amputations who were experiencing severe post-procedure pain.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 3 months of treatment with either a high-frequency nerve block (Altius; Neuros Medical) or an active sham.
• Effectiveness was measured by the percentage of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain in more than half of the treatment sessions.
• The researchers attempted to control for variables including pain type and baseline pain intensity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 24.7% of patients in the group that received the nerve block were responders at 30 minutes post-treatment, significantly higher than 7.1% in the control group (P = .002).
• The rate of response rose to 46.8% in the treatment group at 120 minutes, compared with 22.2% in the sham group (P = .001).
• Patients who received the nerve block reported a greater improvement in their score on the Brief Pain Inventory than those in the sham arm — 2.3 ± 0.29 vs 1.3 ± 0.26, respectively (P = .01).
• Use of opioids trended toward a greater reduction in the treatment group, although that finding was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggested “high-frequency electric nerve block could be a viable option for managing chronic post-amputation pain, potentially improving patients’ quality of life and reducing reliance on opioids,” the authors wrote. “The study addresses a critical gap in treatment options for amputees suffering from persistent pain, offering evidence for a novel therapeutic approach.”

“We have never seen a study of this magnitude and rigor in this patient population,” said lead author Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in a press release about the data. “The data demonstrated clear and lasting benefit of treatment for pain reduction and functional outcomes at 3 months, creating great optimism for the long-term study results. These findings represent a significant advancement for an at-risk and underserved patient population in desperate need of reliable and effective treatment.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was published online in the Journal of Pain Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size of 180 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to all amputees. A 3-month duration for assessing treatment efficacy may not capture long-term outcomes and effects. The active-sham control design, while rigorous, may not fully account for the placebo effects inherent in pain perception studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The QUEST study was funded by Neuros Medical Inc. Dr. Kapural reported personal fees from various medical companies, unrelated to this work. No other conflicts of interest were reported in this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

High-frequency electric nerve block significantly reduced postamputation pain in a new study, presenting a potential new therapeutic option for amputees.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study enrolled 180 patients with unilateral lower limb amputations who were experiencing severe post-procedure pain.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 3 months of treatment with either a high-frequency nerve block (Altius; Neuros Medical) or an active sham.
• Effectiveness was measured by the percentage of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain in more than half of the treatment sessions.
• The researchers attempted to control for variables including pain type and baseline pain intensity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 24.7% of patients in the group that received the nerve block were responders at 30 minutes post-treatment, significantly higher than 7.1% in the control group (P = .002).
• The rate of response rose to 46.8% in the treatment group at 120 minutes, compared with 22.2% in the sham group (P = .001).
• Patients who received the nerve block reported a greater improvement in their score on the Brief Pain Inventory than those in the sham arm — 2.3 ± 0.29 vs 1.3 ± 0.26, respectively (P = .01).
• Use of opioids trended toward a greater reduction in the treatment group, although that finding was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggested “high-frequency electric nerve block could be a viable option for managing chronic post-amputation pain, potentially improving patients’ quality of life and reducing reliance on opioids,” the authors wrote. “The study addresses a critical gap in treatment options for amputees suffering from persistent pain, offering evidence for a novel therapeutic approach.”

“We have never seen a study of this magnitude and rigor in this patient population,” said lead author Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in a press release about the data. “The data demonstrated clear and lasting benefit of treatment for pain reduction and functional outcomes at 3 months, creating great optimism for the long-term study results. These findings represent a significant advancement for an at-risk and underserved patient population in desperate need of reliable and effective treatment.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was published online in the Journal of Pain Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size of 180 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to all amputees. A 3-month duration for assessing treatment efficacy may not capture long-term outcomes and effects. The active-sham control design, while rigorous, may not fully account for the placebo effects inherent in pain perception studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The QUEST study was funded by Neuros Medical Inc. Dr. Kapural reported personal fees from various medical companies, unrelated to this work. No other conflicts of interest were reported in this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

High-frequency electric nerve block significantly reduced postamputation pain in a new study, presenting a potential new therapeutic option for amputees.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study enrolled 180 patients with unilateral lower limb amputations who were experiencing severe post-procedure pain.
• Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 3 months of treatment with either a high-frequency nerve block (Altius; Neuros Medical) or an active sham.
• Effectiveness was measured by the percentage of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain in more than half of the treatment sessions.
• The researchers attempted to control for variables including pain type and baseline pain intensity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 24.7% of patients in the group that received the nerve block were responders at 30 minutes post-treatment, significantly higher than 7.1% in the control group (P = .002).
• The rate of response rose to 46.8% in the treatment group at 120 minutes, compared with 22.2% in the sham group (P = .001).
• Patients who received the nerve block reported a greater improvement in their score on the Brief Pain Inventory than those in the sham arm — 2.3 ± 0.29 vs 1.3 ± 0.26, respectively (P = .01).
• Use of opioids trended toward a greater reduction in the treatment group, although that finding was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggested “high-frequency electric nerve block could be a viable option for managing chronic post-amputation pain, potentially improving patients’ quality of life and reducing reliance on opioids,” the authors wrote. “The study addresses a critical gap in treatment options for amputees suffering from persistent pain, offering evidence for a novel therapeutic approach.”

“We have never seen a study of this magnitude and rigor in this patient population,” said lead author Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in a press release about the data. “The data demonstrated clear and lasting benefit of treatment for pain reduction and functional outcomes at 3 months, creating great optimism for the long-term study results. These findings represent a significant advancement for an at-risk and underserved patient population in desperate need of reliable and effective treatment.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was published online in the Journal of Pain Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size of 180 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to all amputees. A 3-month duration for assessing treatment efficacy may not capture long-term outcomes and effects. The active-sham control design, while rigorous, may not fully account for the placebo effects inherent in pain perception studies.

DISCLOSURES:

The QUEST study was funded by Neuros Medical Inc. Dr. Kapural reported personal fees from various medical companies, unrelated to this work. No other conflicts of interest were reported in this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.