Citations

We here present evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of migraine. These guidelines, created by the Italian Society for the Study of Headache and the International Headache Society, aim to offer clear, actionable recommendations to healthcare professionals. They incorporate evidence-based recommendations from randomized controlled trials and expert-based opinions. The guidelines follow the GRADE approach for assessing the quality of evidence. The guideline development involved a systematic review of literature across multiple databases, adherence to Cochrane review methods, and a structured framework for data extraction and interpretation. Although the guidelines provide a robust foundation for migraine treatment, they also highlight gaps in current research, such as the paucity of head-to-head drug comparisons and the need for long-term outcome studies. These guidelines serve as a resource to standardize migraine treatment and promote high-quality care across different healthcare settings.

We here present evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of migraine. These guidelines, created by the Italian Society for the Study of Headache and the International Headache Society, aim to offer clear, actionable recommendations to healthcare professionals. They incorporate evidence-based recommendations from randomized controlled trials and expert-based opinions. The guidelines follow the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for assessing the quality of evidence. The guideline development involved a systematic review of literature across multiple databases, adherence to Cochrane review methods, and a structured framework for data extraction and interpretation. Although the guidelines provide a robust foundation for migraine treatment, they also highlight gaps in current research, such as the paucity of head-to-head drug comparisons and the need for long-term outcome studies. These guidelines serve as a resource to standardize migraine treatment and promote high-quality care across different healthcare settings.

Objectives: Early identification of patients living with cancer at higher risk of death from an infection is critical in infection mortality prevention. We characterize patients living with cancer at the highest risk of dying from an infection. Methods: 7,529,481 US cancer survivors (1992 to 2015) were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and 95% CIs were calculated. Fine-gray survival analysis was performed to calculate hazard ratios by adjusting for the effects of competing risks (eg, deaths due to causes other than infection). Results: Among 7,529,481 patients living with cancer (1992 to 2015), 101,167 (1.3%) died of infection. The rate of infection-specific mortality was 27.19/10,000 person-years, with an SMR of 3.29 (95% CI: 3.26-3.32, P <0.001). Patients who were older, male, black, and unmarried were at a greater risk of fatal infection. Overall, the risk of infection-specific mortality for patients living with cancer is greatest 1 year after diagnosis compared with the general population (SMR: 8.68, 95% CI: 8.53-8.84; P< 0.0001), and this risk decreases with follow-up time (SMR at >10 y after diagnosis: 2.93, 95% CI: 2.87-3.00; P< 0.0001). Among patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and Kaposi Sarcoma, 9.2%, 11.5%, and 82.2% of all deaths within the first year after cancer diagnosis occurred due to acute infectious disease. In contrast, for patients with liver cancer, the relative percentage of infection-specific mortality increases with follow-up time from 3.5% at <1 year after cancer diagnosis and 10.4% at 10+ years of follow-up. Conclusion: The results of this study characterize infection mortality in patients living with cancer, which can guide more targeted research and interventions in this population.

Migraine is one of the most prevalent and disabling neurological diseases, significantly affecting quality of life and productivity, as well as contributing to substantial societal costs. Recent innovations, including calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway inhibitors and onabotulinumtoxinA, have transformed migraine prevention by offering high efficacy and excellent tolerability, thus improving adherence. Clinical trials and real-world studies show that significant reductions in migraine frequency and, in some cases, complete migraine freedom is achievable. In this Position Statement, we advocate for raising the standards of migraine prevention by setting ambitious treatment goals aimed at optimal outcomes, such as migraine freedom or very low number of days with migraine or moderate/severe headache. We emphasize the importance of addressing residual migraine burden, highlighting that achieving a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, although often considered a successful response, may not fully restore quality of life. Relying solely on percentage-based improvements can obscure the persisting impact of residual burden. This Position Statement does not want to change the standards for clinical trials but aims primarily at real-world clinical practice and proposes a shift from percentage-based measures of success to absolute goals while on treatment. We outline a framework that categorizes outcomes into four tiers: migraine freedom (no days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache), optimal control (less than four days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache), modest control (four to six days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache) and insufficient control (more than days with migraine or moderate-to-severe headache). Focusing on residual burden while on treatment aims to further improve patient quality of life and drive innovation in preventive therapies and non-pharmacological approaches. By advocating for higher standards, this Position Statement, is not aimed primarily to drive reimbursement policies for migraine preventive treatments, but seeks to inspire clinicians, researchers and policymakers to prioritize ambitious goals in migraine prevention, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and reducing the broader societal and economic impact of this debilitating condition.

Introduction Patients (pts) with progressive disease after ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy are unlikely to derive additional benefit from current salvage immunochemotherapies, and survival declines significantly with each subsequent treatment. Pts with refractory disease following second-line therapy have worse outcomes, with reported overall response rates (ORRs) of 1% to 14% and overall survival (OS) of 5 months (Blood. 2017;130[16]:1800-1808). While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has become a preferred strategy in the second- and third-line settings, pts with R/R disease following CAR-T experience dismal survival, with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS as low as 3 and 5 months, respectively, and no agreed standard of care post CAR-T (Blood. 2022;140[24]:2527-2529). The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) was conducted in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or CAR-T. Here, we present subgroup analyses in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, refractory disease, or prior CAR-T. Methods In these subgroup analyses of ECHELON-3, eligible pts had 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, disease refractory to the last prior therapy, or prior exposure to CAR-T. Pts could qualify for ≥1 subgroup and were analyzed separately. Refractory disease was defined as stable or progressive disease as best overall response to last line of treatment or relapse ≤6 months from the end of treatment. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with rituximab (R; 375 mg/m2) q3w and lenalidomide (Len; 20 mg) once daily. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. P values are descriptive. Results In total, 230 pts were enrolled in ECHELON-3 from April 2021 to November 2023, with a median follow-up of 16.4 months (range, 0.1-31.5 months). Overall, 94 pts with 2 prior lines of systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=48) or placebo+Len+R (n=46). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.6 months-not estimable) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 months (95% CI, 4.1-15.8 months) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.557; 95% CI, 0.317-0.977; P=.0388). Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-12.6 months) with BV+Len+R vs 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.0 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.462; 95% CI, 0.279-0.764; P=.0020). ORR was 68.8% (95% CI, 53.7%-81.3%) with BV+Len+R vs 43.5% with placebo+Len+R (95% CI, 28.9%-58.9%; P=.0216); complete response (CR) rate was 52.1% vs 13.0%, respectively. Additional data for pts by lines of therapy received will be presented. In total, 194 pts with disease refractory to the most recent systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=98) and placebo+Len+R (n=96). Median OS was 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.8-16.3 months) with BV+Len+R vs 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.5 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.566; 95% CI, 0.396-0.808; P=.0015). Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.4 months) with BV+Len+R vs 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.4-2.6 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.363-0.712; P&lt;.0001). ORR was 59.2% (95% CI, 48.8%-69.0%) with BV+Len+R vs 29.2% (95% CI, 20.3%-39.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P&lt;.0001); CR rate was 34.7% vs 11.5%, respectively. Overall, 67 pts who received prior CAR-T were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=32) and placebo+Len+R (n=35). Median OS was 15.6 months with BV+Len+R vs 4.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.2-0.75). Median PFS was 3.0 months with BV+Len+R vs 1.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76). ORR was 65.6% (95% CI, 46.8%-81.4%) with BV+Len+R vs 25.7% (95% CI, 12.5%-43.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0014); CR rate was 37.5% vs 11.4%, respectively. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes, including CR and OS, in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, disease refractory to prior treatment, or prior CAR-T. This treatment benefit was generally consistent with that observed in the overall ECHELON-3 study population. Therefore, BV+Len+R has the potential to address an unmet need for effective and tolerable therapy in heavily pretreated pts, as described above.

Abstract Study Objectives The majority of patients with insomnia exhibit abnormal sleep in objective testing (e.g. decreased sleep duration, decreased slow wave sleep [SWS]). Previous studies have suggested that some of these objective measures of poor sleep, such as decreased sleep duration, are associated with a higher risk of hypertension in insomnia. We examined the relationship between SWS and morning and evening blood pressure (BP) levels in patients with clinically diagnosed insomnia. Methods A total of 229 normal sleepers and 1378 insomnia patients were included in this study. Insomnia was defined based on standard diagnostic criteria with symptoms lasting ≥6 months. All participants underwent in-laboratory polysomnography. Patients were classified into quartiles of percent SWS. Evening and morning hypertension were defined using BP measurements taken in the evening before and in the morning after polysomnography, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between insomnia, SWS, and hypertension. Results Insomniacs with &lt;3.5% SWS (OR 3.27, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.31 to 7.66) and those with 3.5%–10.2% SWS (OR 2.38, 95% CI: 1.28 to 5.91) had significantly greater odds of morning hypertension compared to normal sleepers. No associations were seen in insomnia with 10.2%–15.8% SWS and with &gt;15.8% SWS. Significant effect modifications by sex (p = .043) were found, as decreased SWS was associated with morning hypertension only in men. Odds of evening hypertension were not significantly associated with SWS. Conclusions Decreased SWS is associated with morning hypertension in a dose-dependent manner in insomnia, especially in men.

Background In an effort to improve migraine management around the world, the International Headache Society (IHS) has here developed a list of practical recommendations for the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine. The recommendations are categorized into optimal and essential, in order to provide treatment options for all possible settings, including those with limited access to migraine medications. Methods An IHS steering committee developed a list of clinical questions based on practical issues in the management of migraine. A selected group of international senior and junior headache experts developed the recommendations, following expert consensus and the review of available national and international headache guidelines and guidance documents. Following the initial search, a bibliography of twenty-one national and international guidelines was created and reviewed by the working group. Results A total of seventeen questions addressing different aspects of acute migraine treatment have been outlined. For each of them we provide an optimal recommendation, to be used whenever possible, and an essential recommendation to be used when the optimal level cannot be attained. Conclusion Adoption of these international recommendations will improve the quality of acute migraine treatment around the world, even where pharmacological options remain limited.