Search

To describe clinical characteristics and regional treatment patterns of episodic cluster headache (CH). A point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients with CH was conducted in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany in 2017. Overall, 1012 patients with episodic CH were analyzed. Demographic and clinical findings were generally consistent across regions. Most patients were men (66.6%) and the mean age was 40.9 years. The greatest proportion of patients (38.3%) had ≤1 attack per day. The mean number of attacks per day (APD) was 2.4 and mean number of cluster periods per year was 2.6; the mean cluster period duration was 30.8 days. Most patients (69.3%) did not report a specific or predicable time when cluster periods occurred. Acute treatment was prescribed for 47.6% of patients, 10.3% of patients received preventive treatment, and 37.9% of patients received combined acute and preventive treatment; 4.2% of patients were not receiving treatment. Frequently prescribed acute treatments were sumatriptan, oxygen, and zolmitriptan; oxygen use varied considerably across countries and was prescribed least often in the United States. Frequently prescribed preventive treatments were verapamil, topiramate, and lithium. Lack of efficacy and tolerability were the most common reasons for discontinuing preventive treatment. We observed high use of acute treatments, but only half of patients used preventive treatments despite experiencing several cluster periods per year with multiple cluster APD. Further studies about the need for and benefits of preventive treatment for episodic CH are warranted. People with cluster headache (CH) experience headache attacks of excruciating stabbing pain, usually on one side of the head around the eye. These headache attacks typically last between 15 min and 3 h, and come in clusters (or bouts) occurring up to several times a day for a few weeks or months at a time. This greatly impacts a patient's quality of life. We surveyed doctors and their patients across the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany, looking at symptoms that occurred during CH attacks, how long the headache attacks lasted, how often the patient had them, and what medicines were being given. Our results showed that patients with CH suffered from clusters (bouts) of headache attacks several times a year. Nearly, a third of patients had a wrong diagnosis before being diagnosed with CH. Patients experienced stress, agitation, restlessness, difficulty relaxing and depression during a headache attack, especially those who had more CH attacks each day. Although many patients were taking medication, only half of patients were prescribed medicines to prevent their headache attack from starting. Side effects and the medicines not working were the most common reasons patients stopped taking medicine to prevent their headache attacks. The differences seen in medicines prescribed between countries suggest differences in guidance, or in doctors' awareness of current medication guidelines. Further studies about the need for and benefits of medicines to prevent CH attacks are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a case study of a 17-year-old female diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Her clinical presentation, differential diagnoses, and management plan involving metformin, dietary adjustments, and exercise are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: While glycemic control is key in effective type 2 diabetes mellitus management, many patients fail to reach their individualized glycemic goal. This analysis aimed to describe a real-world picture of diabetes management: individualized hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) goals, rate of goal attainment, HbA1c at each line of therapy, and patient awareness of their glycemic goal. Secondly, we aimed to understand physician satisfaction with HbA1c amongst patients aware vs. those unaware of HbA1c goal. Methods: Analysis of physicians and the next ten consulting patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus conducted in Europe and the USA including medical record data abstraction/assessment by physicians, a patient-reported survey and a physician survey. Patients were diagnosed for 3 months or more with a known current and target HbA1c. For the sub-analysis assessment of patient awareness of HbA1c goal, in addition to the above, these patients had to have completed a patient-reported questionnaire and answer the question on awareness of HbA1c goal. Results: A total of 730 physicians provided data on 8794 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus; 5331 patients were eligible for this analysis. Overall, mean (standard deviation, SD) individualized HbA1c goal was 6.8% (0.68%). Of eligible patients, 39.1% met their HbA1c goal; of 60.9% of patients not reaching their HbA1c goal, the mean distance from individualized HbA1c goal was 0.9% (SD 1.0%). Physicians progressed patients' antihyperglycemic therapy when HbA1c was 8% or higher. Among 2560 patients who were included in the sub-analysis assessing the effect of patient awareness of their HbA1c goal on multiple parameters, 70.5% were aware of their HbA1c goal; mean HbA1c goal was 6.8% (0.7%) and current mean HbA1c value 7.1% (1.2%). A total of 949 patients in the sub-analysis (39.2%) achieved their goal; achieving HbA1c goal was not related to knowledge of goal. Patients aware of their HbA1c goal were slightly more adherent to their antihyperglycemic medication. They also were prescribed more antihyperglycemic agents, more often on a later therapy line receiving a GLP-1 receptor agonist, SGLT2i, or insulin, and more often tested their blood glucose levels than patients who were unaware. Physicians were not satisfied with the current blood glucose level of one third of their patients, believing that more of those who were aware of their HbA1c goal could achieve better glucose control (32.4% of aware vs. 28.2% of unaware patients; p = 0.003). Conclusions: Our results showed that the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus achieving their goals for glycemic control was suboptimal when compared to current guideline criteria, with only about 40% of patients achieving their individualized HbA1c goal. Treatment intensification was often delayed until HbA1c was 8% and higher. Patients aware of their HbA1c goal were slightly more adherent to their antihyperglycemic medication; however, awareness of HbA1c goal did not enhance goal attainment. This highlights the need for a holistic approach to diabetes management, involving patient education, and patient–physician communication and partnership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]