Search

BackgroundThe development of mobile health (mHealth) technologies is progressing at a faster pace than that of the science to evaluate their validity and efficacy. Under the International Committee of Journal Medical Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, clinical trials that prospectively assign people to interventions should be registered with a database before the initiation of the study. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to better understand the smartphone mHealth trials for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions registered on ClinicalTrials.gov through November 2018, including the number, types, and characteristics of the studies being conducted; the frequency and timing of any outcome changes; and the reporting of results. MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov for the top 10 most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions and prespecified terms related to mHealth. According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease Study, the top 10 most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions are (1) stroke, (2) migraine, (3) major depressive disorder, (4) Alzheimer disease and other dementias, (5) anxiety disorders, (6) alcohol use disorders, (7) opioid use disorders, (8) epilepsy, (9) schizophrenia, and (10) other mental and substance use disorders. There were no date, location, or status restrictions. ResultsOur search identified 135 studies. A total of 28.9% (39/135) of studies evaluated interventions for major depressive disorder, 14.1% (19/135) of studies evaluated interventions for alcohol use disorders, 12.6% (17/135) of studies evaluated interventions for stroke, 11.1% (15/135) of studies evaluated interventions for schizophrenia, 8.1% (11/135) of studies evaluated interventions for anxiety disorders, 8.1% (11/135) of studies evaluated interventions for other mental and substance use disorders, 7.4% (10/135) of studies evaluated interventions for opioid use disorders, 3.7% (5/135) of studies evaluated interventions for Alzheimer disease or other dementias, 3.0% (4/135) of studies evaluated interventions for epilepsy, and 3.0% (4/135) of studies evaluated interventions for migraine. The studies were first registered in 2008; more than half of the studies were registered from 2016 to 2018. A total of 18.5% (25/135) of trials had results reported in some publicly accessible location. Across all the studies, the mean estimated enrollment (reported by the study) was 1078, although the median was only 100. In addition, across all the studies, the actual reported enrollment was lower, with a mean of 249 and a median of 80. Only about a quarter of the studies (35/135, 25.9%) were funded by the National Institutes of Health. ConclusionsDespite the increasing use of health-based technologies, this analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov suggests that only a few apps for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions are being clinically evaluated in trials.

The article discusses a new monoclonal antibody treatment for migraine, Lu AG09222, targeting pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP). Topics discussed include the trial results showing a reduction in migraine days compared to placebo, the challenges of achieving significant treatment responses given the heterogeneity of migraine causes, and the potential advantages and safety concerns of this new therapy compared to existing treatments.

Objective: We aimed to compare the prescribing patterns of preventive medications between pediatric and adult neurologists for young adults with migraine. Background: Although preventive medications are effective for adults with migraine, studies in children have failed to demonstrate similar efficacy. As a result, lifestyle modifications and non‐pharmacological interventions are often emphasized in children. It is not known whether young adults are prescribed preventive medications at different rates according to whether they are cared for by an adult or pediatric neurologist. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis of patients with migraine aged 18–25 years who were seen by a pediatric or adult neurologist at Mass General Brigham Hospital between 2017 and 2021. The primary outcome was whether the patient received a prescription for any preventive medication during the study period. Results: Among the 767 included patients, 290 (37.8%) were seen by a pediatric neurologist. Preventive medications were prescribed for 131/290 (45.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.5%, 51.0%) patients seen by a pediatric neurologist and 206/477 (43.2%; 95% CI: 39.0%, 47.7%) patients seen by an adult neurologist (p = 0.591). In the mixed effects logistic regression model, clinician specialty was not associated with preventive medication use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.20, 95% CI: 0.62, 2.31). Female sex (AOR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.07, 2.66) and number of visits during the study period (AOR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.49, 1.80) were associated with receiving preventive medication. Conclusion: Approximately two fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this proportion did not differ according to clinician specialty. Although these findings suggest that pediatric and adult neurologists provide comparable care, both specialties may be underusing preventive medications in this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]