Citations

196 Background: Metastatic thyroid cancer portends a poor prognosis, especially in patients over the age of 55 or in more aggressive histologies, such as anaplastic. Palliative care (PC), which focuses on improving the quality of life in patients with severe disease, may be beneficial to these patients. To our knowledge, there has yet to be a study describing the demographic and usage factors associated with PC in metastatic thyroid cancer. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004-2017 for subjects with metastatic thyroid cancer (n = 5,229) of all histologies. Analysis was completed between patients who utilized PC (n = 826) and patients who did not use PC (n = 4,403). The NCDB defines palliative care as care provided to alleviate or palliate symptoms, including radiation therapy, surgery, pain management, and/or systemic therapy. PC usage and survival were compared between cancer subtypes. Demographic factors were analyzed using Pearson chi-squared tests and t-tests, while survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: Of the subjects with metastatic thyroid cancer, 50.6% had papillary, 25.2% had anaplastic, 15.9% had follicular, and 8.3% had medullary thyroid cancer. Anaplastic, medullary, follicular, and papillary metastatic cancers had median survivals of 2.4, 19.9, 49.5, and 55.3 months, respectively (p < 0.001). PC usage increased between 2004 (3.4%) and 2017 (11.4%) across all subtypes. The mean age at diagnosis of PC patients was 69.2 years old compared to 66.9 years old for non-PC patients (p < 0.001). Anaplastic thyroid cancer made up the greatest proportion of PC usage (42.5%) compared to other histologies (p < 0.001). Subjects of Spanish/Hispanic origin received PC at lower proportions (p < 0.001). In addition, Asian patients made up a smaller fraction of the PC cohort (4.2%) compared to the non-PC cohort (6.7%) (p = 0.028). Patients with private insurance made up a smaller proportion of PC users (26.5%) compared to non-PC users (35.6%), while subjects with government insurance or no insurance made up a greater proportion of PC usage (p < 0.001). Less PC usage was seen by patients who lived in an area where greater than 17.6% of individuals did not attain a high school degree; these patients made up 25.3% and 19.9% of the non-PC and PC cohorts, respectively (p = 0.006). Patients who received PC tended to live closer to the reporting hospital (p = 0.007). No statistically significant difference was seen between PC and non-PC cohorts for income and facility type. Conclusions: In this study, we highlighted several disparities in PC usage across common types of thyroid cancer. We also compared usage between categories and noted a greater proportion of PC usage in recent years. Our study is a valuable baseline as PC continues to be integrated in cancer care.

Clinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches, quality of care, treatment safety and effectiveness, factors that predict treatment response, health care resource utilization, clinician adherence to guidelines, and cost-effectiveness. Registry data are valuable for numerous stakeholders, including individuals with headache disorders and their caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and policymakers. This International Headache Society document may serve as guidance for developing clinic-based headache registries. Use of registry data requires a formal research protocol that includes: 1) research aims; 2) methods for data collection, harmonization, analysis, privacy, and protection; 3) methods for human subject protection; and 4) publication and dissemination plans. Depending upon their objectives, headache registries should include validated headache-specific questionnaires, patient reported outcome measures, data elements that are used consistently across studies (i.e., “common data elements”), and medical record data. Amongst other data types, registries may be linked to healthcare and pharmacy claims data, biospecimens, and neuroimaging data. Headache diagnoses should be made according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. The data from well-designed headache registries can provide wide-ranging and novel insights into the characteristics, burden, and treatment of headache disorders and ultimately lead to improvements in the management of patients with headache.

AbstractBackgroundJuvenile nasopharyngeal angiofibroma (JNA) is a rare but potentially life‐threatening fibrovascular tumor that is seen almost exclusively in adolescent males and usually presents with symptoms of nasal obstruction or severe epistaxis. The current gold standard of treatment consists of complete surgical resection; however, this is inherently challenging because of the tumor’s invasive nature and a substantial risk of intraoperative hemorrhage. Flutamide, an anti‐androgen antineoplastic agent, has been used preoperatively in attempts to reduce tumor volume allowing for surgical resection with more conservative procedural techniques and reduce intraoperative blood loss.MethodsA literature review of PubMed and CINAHL was used to identify and analyze 29 male patients with JNA to determine the efficacy of the preoperative use of flutamide.ResultsOur analyses indicate that flutamide may be effective as a neoadjuvant agent by reducing tumor volume prior to resection in some patients but seemed to be more effective in the early stages of JNA without advanced tumor invasion. However, individual tumor response to flutamide was variable. Additionally, postpubertal patients seemed to demonstrate a greater reduction in tumor volume with flutamide compared to their prepubertal counterparts. Dosing regimen and side effects associated with flutamide therapy are also discussed.ConclusionFlutamide may be an effective neoadjuvant therapy in some cases of juvenile nasopharyngeal angiofibroma, but larger scale, case‐control studies are likely needed to further expand on this conclusion. Postpubertal males with early‐stage disease seemed to be the population that may benefit most from this treatment protocol.

Background Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of migraine. Methods In the double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial, participants with 4–14 migraine days/month were randomized to atogepant 10 mg, 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. We evaluated the time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. Analyses included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days during each of the three 4-week treatment periods, change in weekly migraine days during weeks 1–4, and proportion of participants with a migraine on each day during the first week. Results We analyzed 873 participants (n = 214 atogepant 10 mg, n = 223 atogepant 30 mg, n = 222 atogepant 60 mg, n = 214 placebo). For weeks 1–4, mean change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days ranged from −3.1 to −3.9 across atogepant doses vs −1.6 for placebo ( p < 0.0001). For weeks 5–8 and 9–12, reductions in mean monthly migraine days ranged from −3.7 to −4.2 for atogepant vs −2.9 for placebo ( p ≤ 0.012) and −4.2 to −4.4 for atogepant vs −3.0 for placebo ( p < 0.0002), respectively. Mean change from baseline in weekly migraine days in week 1 ranged from −0.77 to −1.03 for atogepant vs −0.29 with placebo ( p < 0.0001). Percentages of participants reporting a migraine on post-dose day 1 ranged from 10.8% to 14.1% for atogepant vs 25.2% with placebo ( p ≤ 0.0071). Conclusion Atogepant demonstrated treatment benefits as early as the first full day after treatment initiation, and sustained efficacy across each 4-week interval during the 12-week treatment period. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03777059

Abstract Objective To evaluate whether the 15‐day threshold of headache days per month adequately reflects substantial differences in disability across the full spectrum of migraine. Background The monthly frequency of headache days defines migraine subtypes and has crucial implications for epidemiological and clinical research as well as access to care. Methods The patients with migraine ( N = 836) who participated in the American Registry for Migraine Research, which is a multicenter, longitudinal patient registry, between February 2016 and March 2020, were divided into four groups based on monthly headache frequency: Group 1 (0–7 headache days/month, n = 286), Group 2 (8–14 headache days/month, n = 180), Group 3 (15–23 headache days/month, n = 153), Group 4 (≥24 headache days/month, n = 217). Disability (MIDAS), Pain intensity (NRS), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), Pain Interference (PROMIS‐PI), Patient Health Questionnaire‐4 (PHQ‐4), and General Anxiety Disorder‐7 (GAD‐7) scores were compared. Results Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 46 (13) years (87.9% [735/836] female). The proportion of patients in each group was as follows: Group 1 (34.2% [286/836]), Group 2 (21.5% [180/836]), Group 3 (18.3% [153/836]), and Group 4 (26.0% [217/836]). There were significant relationships with increasing disability, lost productive time, and pain interference in higher headache frequency categories. There were no significant differences between Group 2 and Group 3 for most measures (NRS, all WPAI scores, PROMIS‐PI, GAD‐7, and PHQ‐4), although MIDAS scores differed (median [interquartile range (IQR)]; 38 [20–58] vs. 55 [30–90], p < 0.001). Patients in Group 1 had significantly lower MIDAS (median [IQR];16 [7–30], p < 0.001), WPAI‐% total active impairment (mean (SD): Group 1 [30.9 (26.8)] vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p = 0.017], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [55.3 (23.0), p < 0.001], and PROMIS‐PI‐T score (Group 1 [60.3 (7.3)] vs. Group 2 [62.6 (6.4), p = 0.008], vs. Group 3 [64.6 (5.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [66.8 (5.9), p < 0.001]) compared to all other groups. Patients in Group 4 had significantly higher MIDAS (median (IQR): Group 4 [90 (52–138)] vs. Group 1 [16 (7–30), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38 (20–58), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [55 (30–90), p < 0.001], WPAI‐%Presenteeism (Group 4 [50.4 (24.4)] vs. Group 1 [28.8 (24.9), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [34.9 (22.3), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [40.9 (22.3), p = 0.048], WPAI‐% total work productivity impairment (Group 4 [55.9 (26.1)] vs. Group 1 [32.1 (37.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38.3 (24.0), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [44.6 (24.4), p = 0.019]), and WPAI‐%Total activity impairment (Group 4 [55.3 (23.0)] vs. Group 1 [30.9 (26.8), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p = 0.025]) scores compared with all other groups. Conclusion Our data suggest that the use of a 15 headache day/month threshold to distinguish episodic and chronic migraine does not capture the burden of illness nor reflect the treatment needs of patients. These results have important implications for future refinements in the classification of migraine.

Background Although the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have cleared several devices that use neuromodulation to provide clinical benefits in the acute or preventive treatment of migraine, the Clinical Trials Committee of the International Headache Society has not developed guidelines specifically for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices. In recognition of the distinct needs and challenges associated with their assessment in controlled trials, the Committee provides these recommendations for optimizing the design and conduct of controlled trials of neuromodulation devices for the acute and/or preventive treatment of migraine. Methods An international group of headache scientists and clinicians with expertise in neuromodulation evaluated clinical trials involving neuromodulation devices that have been published since 2000. The Clinical Trials Committee incorporated findings from this expert analysis into a new guideline for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices for the treatment of migraine. Results Key terms were defined and recommendations provided relative to the assessment of neuromodulation devices for acute treatment in adults, preventive treatment in adults, and acute and preventive treatment in children and adolescents. Ethical and administrative responsibilities were outlined, and a bibliography of previous research involving neuromodulation devices was created. Conclusions Adoption of these recommendations will improve the quality of evidence regarding this important area in migraine treatment.

AbstractBackground and purposeAlthough erenumab has demonstrated significant reduction in migraine frequency and improved quality of life in studies lasting 3 to 12 months, little is known about long‐term therapy.MethodsThis study was an open‐label, 5‐year treatment phase following a 12‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial in adults with episodic migraine. Patients initially received open‐label erenumab 70 mg, which increased to 140 mg following a protocol amendment. Efficacy analyses included change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly acute migraine‐specific medication (AMSM) days, and health‐related quality of life.ResultsOf 383 patients enrolled, 250 switched to 140 mg; 215 (56.1%) completed open‐label treatment. Mean (standard error) change in MMDs from baseline of 8.7 (0.2) days was −5.3 (0.3) days; an average reduction of 62.3% at year 5. Among patients using AMSM at baseline (6.3 [2.8] treatment days), mean change in monthly AMSM days was −4.4 (0.3) days at the end of 5 years. Patient‐reported outcomes indicated stable improvements in disability, headache impact, and migraine‐specific quality of life. Exposure‐adjusted patient incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) were 123.0/100 patient‐years; AEs were most frequently nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and influenza. Serious AEs (SAEs) reported by 49 patients (3.8/100 patient‐years) were mostly single occurrence. Two fatal adverse events were reported. There were no increases in incidence of AEs, SAEs, or AEs leading to treatment discontinuation over 5 years of exposure.ConclusionsTreatment with erenumab was associated with reductions in migraine frequency and improvements in health‐related quality of life that were maintained for at least 5 years. No new safety signals were observed.

Objective To determine reversion rates from chronic migraine to episodic migraine during long-term erenumab treatment. Methods A daily headache diary was completed during the 12-week, double-blind treatment phase of a placebo-controlled trial comparing erenumab 70 mg, 140 mg, and placebo, and weeks 1–12, 21–24, 37–40, and 49–52 of the open-label treatment phase. Chronic migraine to episodic migraine reversion rates were assessed over the double-blind treatment phase; persistent reversion to episodic migraine over 24 weeks (double-blind treatment phase through the first 12 weeks in the open-label treatment phase), long-term persistent reversion to episodic migraine over 64 weeks (double-blind treatment phase plus open-label treatment phase); delayed reversion to episodic migraine through the first 12 weeks of the open-label treatment phase among patients remaining in chronic migraine during the double-blind treatment phase. Results In the double-blind treatment phase, 53.1% (95% confidence interval: 47.8–58.3) of 358 erenumab-treated completers had reversion to episodic migraine; monthly reversion rates to episodic migraine were typically higher among patients receiving 140 mg versus 70 mg. Among 181 completers (receiving erenumab for 64 weeks), 98 (54.1% [95% confidence interval: 46.6–61.6]) had reversion to episodic migraine during the double-blind treatment phase; of those, 96.9% (95% confidence interval: 91.3–99.4) had persistent reversion to episodic migraine, 96.8% (95% confidence interval: 91.1–99.3) of whom had long-term persistent reversion to episodic migraine. Delayed reversion to episodic migraine occurred in 36/83 (43.4% [95% confidence interval: 32.5–54.7]) patients; of these, 77.8% (95% confidence interval: 60.9–89.9) persisted in reversion through week 64. Conclusions Patients with reversion to episodic migraine at week 12 will likely persist as episodic migraine with longer-term erenumab; others may achieve delayed reversion to episodic migraine. Clinical trial registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02066415

Introduction: Triptans, the most commonly prescribed acute treatments for migraine attacks are, per FDA labeling, contraindicated in cardiovascular (CV) disease patients and have warnings and precautions for those with CV risk factors. Methods: Headache specialists, cardiologists, and health economics and outcomes researchers convened to identify diagnostic codes for: (1) CV diseases contraindicating triptans based on FDA labeling; (2) conditions comprising “other significant underlying CV disease”; and (3) CV risk factors included as warnings and precautions for triptans. A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of commercially insured adult US migraine patients in the 2017 Optum ® Clinformatics ® Data Mart (CDM) and the 2017 IBM ® Watson Health MarketScan ® Commercial Claims database was used to estimate the proportion of migraine patients with CV contraindications and warnings and precautions to triptans. Results: Of the 56,662 migraine patients analyzed from Optum CDM, 13.5% had ≥1 CV disease as specified in triptan labeling and an additional 8.5% had ≥1 “other CV disease” judged by the panel to constitute a “significant underlying CV disease” (total: 22.0% migraine patients). Of 176 724 migraine patients analyzed from MarketScan, 12.2% had ≥1 CV disease as specified in the labeling and an additional 8.0% had ≥1 “other significant underlying CV disease” (total: 20.2% of migraine patients). An additional 25.4% and 25.1% of migraine patients had ≥2 CV risk factors in Optum CDM and MarketScan. In total, 47.4% and 45.3% of migraine patients in both databases had a CV disease specified as a contraindication, an “other CV disease” endorsed as significant, or ≥2 CV risk factors identified as warnings and precautions to triptans. Conclusions: Analyses of more than 230,000 people with migraine showed that ≥20% of commercially insured US migraine patients have a CV condition that specifically contraindicates triptan treatment, and an additional 25% have ≥2 CV risk factors identified as warnings and precautions to triptans.