MJA
MJA

The incidence of childhood cancer in Australia, 1983–2015, and projections to 2035

Danny R Youlden, Peter D Baade, Adèle C Green, Patricia C Valery, Andrew S Moore and Joanne F Aitken
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (3): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50456
Published online: 17 February 2020

Abstract

Objectives: To describe changes in childhood cancer incidence in Australia, 1983–2015, and to estimate projected incidence to 2035.

Design, setting: Population‐based study; analysis of Australian Childhood Cancer Registry data for the 20 547 children under 15 years of age diagnosed with cancer in Australia between 1983 and 2015.

Main outcome measures: Incidence rate changes during 1983–2015 were assessed by joinpoint regression, with rates age‐standardised to the 2001 Australian standard population. Incidence projections to 2035 were estimated by age‐period‐cohort modelling.

Results: The overall age‐standardised incidence rate of childhood cancer increased by 34% between 1983 and 2015, increasing by 1.2% (95% CI, +0.5% to +1.9%) per annum between 2005 and 2015. During 2011–2015, the mean annual number of children diagnosed with cancer in Australia was 770, an incidence rate of 174 cases (95% CI, 169–180 cases) per million children per year. The incidence of hepatoblastoma (annual percentage change [APC], +2.3%; 95% CI, +0.8% to +3.8%), Burkitt lymphoma (APC, +1.6%; 95% CI, +0.4% to +2.8%), osteosarcoma (APC, +1.1%; 95%, +0.0% to +2.3%), intracranial and intraspinal embryonal tumours (APC, +0.9%; 95% CI, +0.4% to +1.5%), and lymphoid leukaemia (APC, +0.5%; 95% CI, +0.2% to +0.8%) increased significantly across the period 1983–2015. The incidence rate of childhood melanoma fell sharply between 1996 and 2015 (APC, –7.7%; 95% CI, –10% to –4.8%). The overall annual cancer incidence rate is conservatively projected to rise to about 186 cases (95% CI, 175–197 cases) per million children by 2035 (1060 cases per year).

Conclusions: The incidence rates of several childhood cancer types steadily increased during 1983–2015. Although the reasons for these rises are largely unknown, our findings provide a foundation for health service planning for meeting the needs of children who will be diagnosed with cancer until 2035.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full


Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Implementing value‐based health care at scale: the NSW experience

Elizabeth Koff and Nigel Lyons
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (3): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50470
Published online: 17 February 2020

What is value in health care and how can the system deliver it at scale?

The New South Wales health system exemplifies the worldwide challenge of health service sustainability. With 234 public hospitals and facilities employing over 130 000 staff, the system provides universal access to health care for a growing population of almost 8 million people across a diverse geography of over 800 000 km2. The NSW Health budget in 2018–19 was $25 billion,1 representing over 25% of the annual state budget. As with all health systems, NSW Health is experiencing growing pressure from chronic disease, an ageing population and the use of new technology. In response, optimising health system access and efficiency has been central to health reform in NSW.2


  • NSW Health, Sydney, NSW



Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

First statewide meningococcal B vaccine program in infants, children and adolescents: evidence for implementation in South Australia

Helen S Marshall, Noel Lally, Louise Flood and Paddy Phillips
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (2): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50481
Published online: 3 February 2020

Summary

  • Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is an uncommon but life‐threatening infection caused by Neisseria meningitidis. Serogroups B, C, W and Y cause most IMD cases in Australia. The highest incidence occurs in children under 5 years of age. A second peak occurs in adolescents and young adults, which is also the age of highest carriage prevalence of N. meningitidis.
  • Meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) disease predominated nationally before 2016 and has remained the predominant cause of IMD in South Australia with 82% of cases, compared with 35% in New South Wales, 35% in Queensland, 9% in Victoria, 29% in Western Australia and 36% nationally in 2016.
  • MenB vaccination is recommended by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation for infants up to 2 years of age and adolescents aged 15–19 years (age 15–24 years for at‐risk groups, such as people living in close quarters or smokers), laboratory workers with exposure to N. meningitidis, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from age 2 months to 19 years.
  • Due to the epidemiology and disease burden from MenB, a meningococcal B vaccine program has been implemented in South Australia for individuals with age‐specific incidence rates higher than the mean rate of 2.8/100 000 population in South Australia in the period 2000–2017, including infants, young children (< 4 years) and adolescents (15–20 years).
  • Program evaluation of vaccine effectiveness against IMD is important. As observational evidence also suggests 4CMenB may have an impact on Neisseria gonorrhoeae with genetic homology between bacterial species, the vaccine impact on gonorrhoea will also be assessed.

  • 1 Women's and Children's Health Network, Adelaide, SA
  • 2 Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA
  • 3 Communicable Disease Control Branch, Department for Health and Wellbeing, , Adelaide, SA



Acknowledgements: 

Helen Marshall is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council: Career Development Fellowship (1084951). We thank Rodney Pearce and Celia Cooper, members of the South Australian Meningococcal B Expert Working Group, for reviewing the manuscript.

Competing interests:

The University of Adelaide, Helen Marshall's employer, has received funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer to undergo investigator‐led research. Helen Marshall is a member of ATAGI, but the views expressed in this article are her own views. She does not receive any personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry.

  • 1. Rouphael NG, Stephens DS. Neisseria meningitidis: biology, microbiology, and epidemiology. Methods Mol Biol 2012; 799: 1–20.
  • 2. Stephens DS, Greenwood B, Brandtzaeg P. Epidemic meningitis, meningococcaemia, and Neisseria meningitidis. Lancet 2007; 369: 2196–2210.
  • 3. Australian Government Department of Health. Invasive Meningococcal Disease National Surveillance report — 1 October to 31 December 2018. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2018. https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/5FEABC4B495BDEC1CA25807D001327FA/$File/1Oct-31Dec19-qrt3-IMD.pdf (viewed Dec 2019).
  • 4. Lahra MM, Enriquez R. Australian Meningococcal Surveillance Programme annual report, 2016. Commun Dis Intell Q Rep 2017; 41: E369–E382.
  • 5. Wang B, Santoreneos R, Afzali H, et al. Case fatality rates of invasive meningococcal disease by serogroup and age: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Vaccine 2019; 9(37): 2768–2782.
  • 6. Wang B, Clarke M, Thomas N, et al. The clinical burden and predictors of sequelae following invasive meningococcal disease in Australian children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2014; 33: 316–318.
  • 7. Christensen H, May M, Bowen L, et al. Meningococcal carriage by age: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2010; 10: 853–861.
  • 8. McMillan M, Walters L, Turra M, et al. B Part of It study: a longitudinal study to assess carriage of Neisseria meningitidis in first year university students in South Australia. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2019; 15: 987–994.
  • 9. Australian government Department of Health. National Notifiable Disease Surveillance reports. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2019. http://www9.health.gov.au/cda/source/rpt_3.cfm (viewed Dec 2019).
  • 10. Australian Government, Department of Health. Invasive Meningococcal Disease National Surveillance report – 1 January to 31 March 2018. Canberra: 2018. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ohp-meningococcal-W.htm (viewed Dec 2019).
  • 11. Archer BN, Chiu CK, Jayasinghe SH, et al. Epidemiology of invasive meningococcal B disease in Australia, 1999–2015: priority populations for vaccination. Med J Aust 2017; 207: 382–387. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2017/207/9/epidemiology-invasive-meningococcal-b-disease-australia-1999-2015-priority
  • 12. Booy R, Gentile A, Nissen M, et al. Recent changes in the epidemiology of Neisseria meningitidis serogroup W across the world, current vaccination policy choices and possible future strategies. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2019; 15: 470–480.
  • 13. Parikh SR, Campbell H, Gray SJ, et al. Epidemiology, clinical presentation, risk factors, intensive care admission and outcomes of invasive meningococcal disease in England, 2010–2015. Vaccine 2018; 36: 3876–3881.
  • 14. MacNeil JR, Blain AE, Wang X, et al. Current epidemiology and trends in meningococcal disease — United States, 1996–2015. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 66: 1276–1281.
  • 15. McNamara LA, Shumate AM, Johnsen P, et al. First use of a serogroup B meningococcal vaccine in the US in response to a university outbreak. Pediatrics 2015; 135: 798–804.
  • 16. Soeters HM, McNamara LA, Whaley M, et al. Serogroup B meningococcal disease outbreak and carriage evaluation at a college — Rhode Island, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015; 64: 606–607.
  • 17. Soeters HM, Whaley M, Alexander‐Scott N, et al. Meningococcal carriage evaluation in response to a serogroup B meningococcal disease outbreak and mass vaccination campaign at a college — Rhode Island, 2015–2016. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 64: 1115–1122.
  • 18. Marshall H, Wang B, Wesselingh S, et al. Control of invasive meningococcal disease: is it achievable? Int J Evid Based Healthc 2016; 14: 3–14.
  • 19. Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). The Australian immunisation handbook. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health, 2018. https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au (viewed Jan 2019).
  • 20. Parikh SR, Andrews NJ, Beebeejaun K, et al. Effectiveness and impact of a reduced infant schedule of 4CMenB vaccine against group B meningococcal disease in England: a national observational cohort study. Lancet 2016; 388: 2775–2782.
  • 21. Prymula R, Esposito S, Zuccotti GV, et al. A phase 2 randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (I): effects of prophylactic paracetamol on immunogenicity and reactogenicity of routine infant vaccines and 4CMenB. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2014; 10: 1993–2004.
  • 22. Bai X, Findlow J, Borrow R. Recombinant protein meningococcal serogroup B vaccine combined with outer membrane vesicles. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2011; 11: 969–985.
  • 23. Marshall HS, Vesikari T, Richmond PC, et al. The meningococcal serogroup B vaccine MenB‐FHbp (bivalent RLP2086) is safe and immunogenic in healthy toddlers aged ≥ 12 to < 24 months [abstract]. European Society Paediatric Infectious Diseases Meeting; Malmo (Sweden), May, 2018. https://espidmeeting.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/08/ESPID-2018-Abstracts.pdf (viewed Jan 2019).
  • 24. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Multicomponent meningococcal group B vaccine (4CmenB); 0.5 mL suspension for injection pre‐filled syringe; Bexsero® — July 2015 (Section 7. PBAC Outcome). Canberra: Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, 2015. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2015-07/mulit-component-meningococcal-group-b-vaccine-psd-july-2015 (viewed June 2018).
  • 25. South Australian Meningococcal B Expert Working Group. A Meningococcal B Program for South Australia. Adelaide: SA Health, 2018. https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/about+us/reviews+and+consultation/meningococcal+b+program+for+south+australia (viewed Sept 2018).
  • 26. Australian Government Department of Health. Invasive Meningococcal Disease National Surveillance report, with a focus on MenW — 9 January 2017. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2017. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/5FEABC4B495BDEC1CA25807D001327FA/$File/1Jan-31-Dec2017-Consol-Invasive-Men-W.pdf (viewed Dec 2019).
  • 27. Plikaytis BD, Stella M, Boccadifuoco G, et al. Interlaboratory standardization of the sandwich enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay designed for MATS, a rapid, reproducible method for estimating the strain coverage of investigational vaccines. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2012; 19: 1609–1617.
  • 28. Tozer S, Whiley D, Smith H, et al. Use of the meningococcal antigen typing system to assess the Australian meningococcal strain coverage with a multicomponent serogroup B vaccine. 20th International Pathogenic Neisseria Conference (IPNC); Manchester (UK); 4–9 September, 2016; p 257. http://ipnc2016.org/IPNC2016AbstractBook.pdf (viewed Nov 2019).
  • 29. Koutangni T, Boubacar Mainassara H, Mueller JE. Incidence, carriage and case‐carrier ratios for meningococcal meningitis in the African meningitis belt: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0116725.
  • 30. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Net interstate migration [Cat. No. 3412.0]. Canberra: ABS, 2018. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3412.0Main%20Features52017-18?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3412.0&issue=2017-18&num=&view= (viewed Jan 2019).
  • 31. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Net overseas migration. Canberra: ABS, 2018. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3412.0Main%20Features42017-18?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3412.0&issue=2017-18&num=&view= (viewed Dec 2019).
  • 32. Bryan P, Seabroke S, Wong J, et al. Safety of multicomponent meningococcal group B vaccine (4CMenB) in routine infant immunisation in the UK: a prospective surveillance study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2018; 2: 395–403.
  • 33. Marshall H, Koehler A, Pratt N, et al. Enhanced passive surveillance of adverse events following implementation of a meningococcal B vaccine program in senior school students. 16th National Immunisation Conference; Adelaide (Australia); 4–6 June, 2018; p 63.
  • 34. Nainani V, Galal U, Buttery J, et al. An increase in accident and emergency presentations for adverse events following immunisation after introduction of the group B meningococcal vaccine: an observational study. Arch Dis Child 2017; 102: 958–962.
  • 35. Fiorito TM, Baird GL, Alexander‐Scott N, et al. Adverse events following vaccination with bivalent rLP2086 (Trumenba): an observational, longitudinal study during a college outbreak and a systematic review. J Pediatr Infect Dis 2018; 37: e13–e19.
  • 36. Marshall HS, McMillan M, Koehler A, et al. B Part of It protocol: a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of 4CMenB vaccine on pharyngeal carriage of Neisseria meningitidis in adolescents. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e020988.
  • 37. Marshall HS, McMillan M, Koehler AP, et al. Meningococcal B vaccine and meningococcal carriage in adolescents, Australia. N Engl J Med 2019. In press.
  • 38. Petousis‐Harris H, Paynter J, Morgan J, et al. Effectiveness of a group B outer membrane vesicle meningococcal vaccine against gonorrhoea in New Zealand: a retrospective case‐control study. Lancet 2017; 390: 1603–1610.
  • 39. Longtin J, Dion R, Simard M, et al. Possible impact of wide‐scale vaccination against serogroup B Neisseria meningitidis on gonorrhea incidence rates in one region of Quebec, Canada. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017; 4 (Suppl): S734–S735.
  • 40. Graham S, Guy RJ, Donovan B, et al. Epidemiology of chlamydia and gonorrhoea among Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australians, 2000–2009. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 642–646. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/197/11/epidemiology-chlamydia-and-gonorrhoea-among-indigenous-and-non-indigenous
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Caesarean section births for twins: rational choice, or a non‐evidence‐based intervention that may cause harm?

David A Ellwood
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (2): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50454
Published online: 3 February 2020

The change from vaginal births to operative births may entail unforeseen longer term consequences

The benefits and risks of birth by caesarean section are debated, with passionate proponents on each side of the discussion.1 The most recent national data (for 2017) indicate that in Australia more than one‐third of babies (35%) were born after caesarean section.2 While its safety has undoubtedly improved, it is still reported that greater maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality are associated with caesarean section than with vaginal births.3 The longer term health outcomes for mother and child are also important.4 In this issue of the MJA, Liu and her colleagues5 report that the caesarean rate for twin pregnancies in Victoria has almost tripled over the past three decades, and that the most frequent reason for operative intervention was the twin pregnancy itself. It is pertinent to examine the reasons for this trend and to ask whether it is justified.


  • 1 Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD
  • 2 Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast, QLD


Correspondence: d.ellwood@griffith.edu.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Ellwood DA, Oats J. Every caesarean section must count. Aust N Z J Obstets Gynaecol 2016; 56: 450–452.
  • 2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's mothers and babies 2017: in brief (Cat. No. PER 100; Perinatal statistics series no. 35). Canberra: AIHW, 2019.
  • 3. Keag OE, Norman JE. Stock SJ. Long‐term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLoS Med 2018; 15: e1002494.
  • 4. Bentley JP, Roberts CL, Bowen JR, et al. Planned birth before 39 weeks and child development: a population‐based study. Pediatrics 2016; 138: e20162002.
  • 5. Liu Y, Davey MA, Lee R, et al. Changes in the modes of twin birth in Victoria, 1983–2015. Med J Aust 2020; 212: 82–88.
  • 6. Barrett JFR, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. New Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1295–1305.
  • 7. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000; 356: 1375–1383.
  • 8. Australian Department of Health. Pregnancy care guidelines: 61.3. Breech presentation. Updated 17 May 2019. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/pregnancy-care-guidelines/part-j-clinical-assessments-in-late-pregnancy/fetal-presentation#613-breech-presentation (viewed Nov 2019).
  • 9. Coates D, Thirukumar P, Spear V, et al. What are women's mode of birth preferences and why? A systematic scoping review. Women Birth; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2019.09.005. [Epub ahead of print]
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

The cheques and balances of national universal screening of patients with new colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome

Megan Hitchins
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (2): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50453
Published online: 3 February 2020

Tiered universal screening systems that save lives are cost‐effective

About 15–20% of colorectal cancers exhibit microsatellite instability (MSI) caused by deficient DNA mismatch repair (MMR).1 Most of these cancers (80%) are sporadic, associated with hypermethylation of the MLH1 gene promoter. Lynch syndrome is caused by germline mutations affecting one of the MMR genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2), and accounts for 15–20% of MMR‐deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancers, or 2–5% of all colorectal cancers, making it the most common hereditary colorectal cancer predisposition syndrome.2 People with Lynch syndrome are at increased risk of several cancer types, especially colorectal cancer: the risk by age 70 years is 10–82%, depending on the mutant gene, considerably higher than that of the general population (4.5%).3


  • Cedars‐Sinai Center for Bioinformatics and Functional Genomics, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America


Correspondence: megan.hitchins@cshs.org

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR, et al. A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Microsatellite Instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 1998; 58: 5248–5257.
  • 2. Lynch HT, Snyder CL, Shaw TG, et al. Milestones of Lynch syndrome: 1895–2015. Nat Rev Cancer 2015; 15: 181–194.
  • 3. Møller P, Seppälä T, Bernstein I, et al. Cancer incidence and survival in Lynch syndrome patients receiving colonoscopic and gynaecological surveillance: first report from the prospective Lynch syndrome database. Gut 2017; 66: 464–472.
  • 4. Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, et al. Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1851–1860.
  • 5. Hampel H, Frankel W, Panescu J, et al. Screening for Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) among endometrial cancer patients. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 7810–7817.
  • 6. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med 2009; 11: 35–41.
  • 7. Giardiello FM, Allen JI, Axilbund JE, et al; US Multi‐Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: a consensus statement by the US Multi‐Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 502–526.
  • 8. Stoffel EM, Mangu PB, Gruber SB, et al; American Society of Clinical Oncology; European Society of Clinical Oncology. Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline endorsement of the familial risk‐colorectal cancer: European Society for Medical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 209–217.
  • 9. Gallego CJ, Shirts BH, Bennette CS, et al. Next‐generation sequencing panels for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes: a cost‐effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 2084–2091.
  • 10. Kang YJ, Killen J, Caruana M, et al. The predicted impact and cost‐effectiveness of systematic testing of people with incident colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome. Med J Aust 2020; 212: 72–81.
  • 11. Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J, et al. Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost‐effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 69–79.
  • 12. Webber EM, Kauffman TL, O'Connor E, Goddard KA. Systematic review of the predictive effect of MSI status in colorectal cancer patients undergoing 5FU‐based chemotherapy. BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 156.
  • 13. Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD‐1 blockade in tumors with mismatch‐repair deficiency. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 2509–2520.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Use of botulinum toxin to heal atypical pressure ulcers in the palm

Anupam Datta Gupta and David H Wilson
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (2): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50452
Published online: 3 February 2020

A 59‐year‐old woman attended our spasticity clinic with treatment‐resistant atypical pressure ulcer in the right hand caused by focal spasticity secondary to upper motor neuron lesion. She had suffered subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured arteriovenous malformation and underwent craniotomy. She was deemed not suitable for structured rehabilitation due to her significant disability and was placed in a residential accommodation. The patient was using an electrical wheelchair and was requiring full assistance with her personal care. She had typical, dense post‐stroke right‐sided spastic hemiplegia. In the upper limb, she had shoulder adduction and internal rotation, elbow flexion, wrist palmar flexion with flexed fingers at the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints. She had a baclofen pump that controlled her lower limb spasticity.


  • 1 Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, SA
  • 2 University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA



Acknowledgements: 

We thank Barbara Brougham for her help with the editing of the manuscript.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Gupta AD, Wilson W. Botulinum toxin for spasticity: a case for change to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Med J Aust 2018; 208: 379–381. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2018/208/9/botulinum-toxin-spasticity-case-change-pharmaceutical-benefits-scheme
  • 2. Meijer R, Wolswijk A, Eijsden HV. Prevalence, impact and treatment of spasticity in nursing home patients with central nervous system disorders: a cross‐sectional study. Disabil Rehabil 2017; 39: 363–371.
  • 3. Jaul E. Cohort study of atypical pressure ulcers development. Int Wound J 2014; 11: 696–700.
  • 4. Atiyeh BS, Hayek SN. Pressure sores with associated spasticity: a clinical challenge. Int Wound J 2005; 2: 77–80.
  • 5. Nair KP, Marsden J. The management of spasticity in adults. BMJ 2014; 349: g4737.
  • 6. Ward AB. A summary of spasticity management — a treatment algorithm. Eur J Neurol 2002; 9 (Suppl): 48–52.
  • 7. Tarsy D, Simon DK. Dystonia. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 818–828.
  • 8. Graham LA. Management of spasticity revisited. Age Ageing 2013; 42: 435–441.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Understanding the proportion of cervical cancers attributable to HPV

Julia ML Brotherton, Alison C Budd and Marion Saville
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (2): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50477
Published online: 3 February 2020

Most cervical cancers can be prevented with HPV vaccination and screening

Since Walboomers and colleagues1 published their findings in 1999, citing that 99.7% of cervical cancers are related to the human papillomavirus (HPV), this has become the standard understanding of the proportion of cervical cancers attributable to HPV.


  • 1 VCS Foundation, Melbourne, VIC
  • 2 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, ACT


Correspondence: jbrother@vcs.org.au

Competing interests:

Julia Brotherton and Marion Saville are investigators on the Compass Trial, conducted and funded by VCS Foundation. VCS Foundation have received equipment and a funding contribution for the Compass Trial from Roche Molecular Systems and Roche Tissue Diagnostics.

  • 1. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999; 189: 12–19.
  • 2. Brotherton JML, Tabrizi SN, Phillips S, et al. Looking beyond human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype 16 and 18: defining HPV genotype distribution in cervical cancers in Australia before vaccination. Int J Cancer 2017; 141: 1576–1584.
  • 3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cervical screening in Australia 2018 [Cat. No. CAN 111]. Canberra: AIHW, 2018. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer-screening/cervical-screening-in-australia-2018/contents/table-of-contents (viewed Dec 2019).
  • 4. Li N, Franceschi S, Howell‐Jones R, et al. Human papillomavirus type distribution in 30,848 invasive cervical cancers worldwide: Variation by geographical region, histological type and year of publication. Int J Cancer 2011; 128: 927–35.
  • 5. Saraiya M, Unger ER, Thompson TD, et al. HPV Typing of Cancers Workgroup. US assessment of HPV types in cancers: implications for current and 9‐valent HPV vaccines. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; 107: djv086.
  • 6. Lagheden C, Eklund C, Lamin H, et al. Nationwide comprehensive human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping of invasive cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 2018; 118: 1377–1381.
  • 7. Petry KU, Liebrich C, Luyten A, et al. Surgical staging identified false HPV‐negative cases in a large series of invasive cervical cancers. Papillomavirus Res 2017; 4: 85–89.
  • 8. McCluggage WG. Recent developments in non‐HPV‐related adenocarcinomas of the lower female genital tract and their precursors. Adv Anat Pathol 2016; 23: 58–69.
  • 9. Hodgson A, Park KJ. Cervical adenocarcinomas: a heterogeneous group of tumors with variable etiologies and clinical outcomes. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2019; 143: 34–46.
  • 10. Stolnicu S, Barsan I, Hoang L, et al. International Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Criteria and Classification (IECC): a new pathogenetic classification for invasive adenocarcinomas of the endocervix. Am J Surg Pathol 2018; 42: 214–226.
  • 11. Castle PE, Pierz A, Stoler MH. A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the attribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) in neuroendocrine cancers of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 2018; 148: 422–429.
  • 12. Casey S, Harley I, Jamison J, et al. A rare case of HPV‐negative cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2015; 34: 208–212.
  • 13. Higgins GD, Uzelin DM, Phillips GE, et al. Increased age and mortality associated with cervical carcinomas negative for human papillomavirus RNA. Lancet 1991; 338: 910–913.
  • 14. Lei J, Ploner A, Lagheden C, et al. High‐risk human papillomavirus status and prognosis in invasive cervical cancer: a nationwide cohort study. PLoS Med 2018; 15: e1002666.
  • 15. Hallowell BD, Saraiya M, Thompson TD, et al. Population‐based assessment of HPV genotype‐specific cervical cancer survival: CDC Cancer Registry Sentinel Surveillance System. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2018; 2: pky036.
  • 16. World Health Organization. Cervical cancer elimination strategy. WHO, 2019. https://www.who.int/cancer/cervical-cancer/cervical-cancer-elimination-strategy (viewed Dec 2019).
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Victoria's Voluntary Assisted Dying Act: navigating the section 8 gag clause

Bryanna Moore, Courtney Hempton and Evie Kendal
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (2): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50437
Published online: 20 January 2020

Section 8 is an unwarranted infringement on communication between health practitioners and their patients

In November 2017, the state of Victoria passed the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 (Vic), legalising a model of voluntary physician‐assisted death for adults at the end of life who meet a number of criteria, including rigorously assessed diagnostic and prognostic requirements. The Act came into effect on 19 June 2019. Its implementation raises a host of challenges.1 Here we focus on one aspect of the new law that has been largely overlooked in ethico‐legal debates thus far — the section 8 gag clause.


  • 1 Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
  • 2 Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
  • 3 Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC


Correspondence: bryannasuemoore@gmail.com

Acknowledgements: 

Courtney Hempton receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease in infancy: a review based on international guidelines

Robert N Lopez and Daniel A Lemberg
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (1): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50447
Published online: 13 January 2020

Summary

  • Gastro‐oesophageal reflux (GOR) in infancy is common, physiological and self‐limiting; it is distinguished from gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) by the presence of organic complications and/or troublesome symptomatology.
  • GORD is more common in infants with certain comorbidities, including history of prematurity, neurological impairment, repaired oesophageal atresia, repaired diaphragmatic hernia, and cystic fibrosis.
  • The diagnosis of GORD in infants relies almost exclusively on clinical history and examination findings; the role of invasive testing and empirical trials of therapy remains unclear.
  • The assessment of infants with vomiting and regurgitation should seek out red flags and not be attributed to GOR or GORD without considered evaluation.
  • Investigations should be considered to exclude other pathology in infants referred with suspected GORD, and occasionally to confirm the diagnosis.
  • Management of GORD should follow a step‐wise approach that uses non‐pharmacological options where possible and pharmacological interventions only where necessary.

  • 1 Queensland Children's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD
  • 2 Sydney Children's Hospital, Sydney, NSW



Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Orenstein SR, Shalaby TM, Cohn JF. Reflux symptoms in 100 normal infants: diagnostic validity of the infant gastroesophageal reflux questionnaire. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1996; 35: 607–614.
  • 2. World Health Organization. Definition of key terms. WHO, 2013. https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/guidelines/arv2013/intro/keyterms/en/ (viewed Nov 2019).
  • 3. De S, Rajeshwari K, Kalra KK, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux in infants and children in north India. Trop Gastroenterol 2001; 22: 99–102.
  • 4. Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, et al; Global Consensus Group. The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence‐based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 1900–1920; quiz 43.
  • 5. Scherer LD, Zikmund‐Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Tarini BA. Influence of “GERD” label on parents’ decision to medicate infants. Pediatrics 2013; 131: 839–845.
  • 6. Neu M, Schmiege SJ, Pan Z, et al. Interactions during feeding with mothers and their infants with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux. J Altern Complement Med 2014; 20: 493–499.
  • 7. Davies I, Burman‐Roy S, Murphy MS. Guideline Development Group. Gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease in children: NICE guidance. BMJ 2015; 350: g7703.
  • 8. Kotsis GP, Nikolopoulos TP, Yiotakis IE, et al. Recurrent acute otitis media and gastroesophageal reflux disease in children. Is there an association? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 73: 1373–1380.
  • 9. Rosen R, Vandenplas Y, Singendonk M, et al. Pediatric gastroesophageal reflux clinical practice guidelines: joint recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2018; 66: 516–554.
  • 10. Vandenplas Y, Rudolph CD, Di Lorenzo C, et al. Pediatric gastroesophageal reflux clinical practice guidelines: joint recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN). J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2009; 49: 498–547.
  • 11. Mousa H, Woodley F, Metheney M, Hayes J. Testing the association between gastroesophageal reflux and apnea in infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2005; 41: 169–177.
  • 12. Peter C, Sprodowski N, Bohnhorst B, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux and apnea of prematurity: no temporal relationship. Pediatrics 2002; 109: 8–11.
  • 13. Irace AL, Dombrowski ND, Kawai K, et al. Evaluation of aspiration in infants with laryngomalacia and recurrent respiratory and feeding difficulties. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 145: 146–151.
  • 14. Arasu TS, Wyllie R, Fitzgerald JF, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux in infants and children ‐ comparative accuracy of diagnostic methods. J Pediatr 1980; 96: 798–803.
  • 15. Ravelli AM, Villanacci V, Ruzzenenti N, et al. Dilated intercellular spaces: a major morphological feature of esophagitis. J Ped Gastroenterol Nutr 2006; 42: 510–515.
  • 16. Cucchiara S, Minella R, D'Armiento F, et al. Histologic grading of reflux oesophagitis and its relationship with intra‐oesophageal and intragastric pH variables. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1993; 5: 621–626.
  • 17. Patra S, Singh V, Chandra J, et al. Diagnostic modalities for gastro‐esophageal reflux in infantile wheezers. J Trop Pediatr 2011; 57: 99–103.
  • 18. Ludman S, Shah N, Fox AT. Managing cows’ milk allergy in children. BMJ 2013; 347: f5424.
  • 19. Singendonk MMJ, Brink AJ, Steutel NF, et al. Variations in definitions and outcome measures in gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2017; 140: e20164166.
  • 20. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924–926.
  • 21. Omari TI, Rommel N, Staunton E, et al. Paradoxical impact of body positioning on gastroesophageal reflux and gastric emptying in the premature neonate. J Pediatr 2004; 145: 194–200.
  • 22. van Wijk MP, Benninga MA, Dent J, et al. Effect of body position changes on postprandial gastroesophageal reflux and gastric emptying in the healthy premature neonate. J Pediatr 2007; 151: 585–590, 90 e1‐2.
  • 23. Vandenplas Y, De Schepper J, Verheyden S, et al. A preliminary report on the efficacy of the Multicare AR‐Bed in 3‐week‐3‐month‐old infants on regurgitation, associated symptoms and acid reflux. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95: 26–30.
  • 24. Corvaglia L, Martini S, Aceti A, et al. Nonpharmacological management of gastroesophageal reflux in preterm infants. Biomed Res Int 2013; 2013: 141967.
  • 25. Horvath A, Dziechciarz P, Szajewska H. The effect of thickened‐feed interventions on gastroesophageal reflux in infants: systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Pediatrics 2008; 122: e1268–e1277.
  • 26. Xinias I, Mouane N, Le Luyer B, et al. Cornstarch thickened formula reduces oesophageal acid exposure time in infants. Dig Liver Dis 2005; 37: 23–27.
  • 27. Ostrom KM, Jacobs JR, Merritt RJ, Murray RD. Decreased regurgitation with a soy formula containing added soy fiber. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2006; 45: 29–36.
  • 28. Miyazawa R, Tomomasa T, Kaneko H, et al. Effect of formula thickened with reduced concentration of locust bean gum on gastroesophageal reflux. Acta Paediatr 2007; 96: 910–914.
  • 29. Moukarzel AA, Abdelnour H, Akatcherian C. Effects of a prethickened formula on esophageal pH and gastric emptying of infants with GER. J Clin Gastroenterol 2007; 41: 823–829.
  • 30. Srivastava R, Downey EC, O'Gorman M, et al. Impact of fundoplication versus gastrojejunal feeding tubes on mortality and in preventing aspiration pneumonia in young children with neurologic impairment who have gastroesophageal reflux disease. Pediatrics 2009; 123: 338–345.
  • 31. Pereira GR, Lemons JA. Controlled study of transpyloric and intermittent gavage feeding in the small preterm infant. Pediatrics 1981; 67: 68–72.
  • 32. Macdonald PD, Skeoch CH, Carse H, et al. Randomised trial of continuous nasogastic, bolus nasogastric, and transpyloric feeding in infants of birth weight under 1400 g. Arch Dis Child 1992; 67: 429–431.
  • 33. Ummarino D, Miele E, Martinelli M, et al. Effect of magnesium alginate plus simethicone on gastroesophageal reflux in infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2015; 60: 230–235.
  • 34. Miller S. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of a new aluminium‐free paediatric alginate preparation and placebo in infants with recurrent gastro‐oesophageal reflux. Curr Med Res Opin 1999; 15: 160–168.
  • 35. Davidson G, Wenzl TG, Thomson M, et al. Efficacy and safety of once‐daily esomeprazole for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in neonatal patients. J Pediatr 2013; 163: 692–698.e1‐2.
  • 36. Orenstein SR, Hassal E, Furmaga‐Jablonska W, et al. Multicenter, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial assessing the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole in infants with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Pediatr 2009; 154: 514–520.
  • 37. Hussain S, Kierkus J, Hu P, et al. Safety and efficacy of delayed release rabeprazole in 1‐ to 11‐month‐old infants with symptomatic GERD. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2014; 58: 226–236.
  • 38. Winter H, Kum‐Nji P, Mahomedy SH, et al. Efficacy and safety of pantoprazole delayed‐release granules for oral suspension in a placebo‐controlled treatment‐withdrawal study in infants 1–11 months old with symptomatic GERD. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2010; 50: 609–618.
  • 39. Winter H, Gunasekaran T, Tolia V, et al. Esomeprazole for the treatment of GERD in infants ages 1–11 months. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2015; 60: S9–S15.
  • 40. Moore DJ, Tao BS, Lines DR, et al. Double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial of omeprazole in irritable infants with gastroesophageal reflux. J Pediatr 2003; 143: 219–223.
  • 41. Orenstein SR, Blumer JL, Faessel HM, et al. Ranitidine, 75 mg, over‐the‐counter dose: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects in children with symptoms of gastro‐oesophageal reflux. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2002; 16: 899–907.
  • 42. Cucchiara S, Gobio‐Casali L, Balli F, et al. Cimetidine treatment of reflux esophagitis in children: an Italian multicentric study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1989; 8: 150–156.
  • 43. Simeone D, Caria MC, Miele E, Staiano A. Treatment of childhood peptic esophagitis: a double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial of nizatidine. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1997; 25: 51–55.
  • 44. Cremonini F, Ziogas DC, Chang HY, et al. Meta‐analysis: the effects of placebo treatment on gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 32: 29–42.
  • 45. Labenz J, Malfertheiner P. Treatment of uncomplicated reflux disease. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: 4291–4299.
  • 46. Chiba N, De Gara CJ, Wilkinson JM, Hunt RH. Speed of healing and symptom relief in grade II to IV gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta‐analysis. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 1798–1810.
  • 47. De Bruyne P, Ito S. Toxicity of long‐term use of proton pump inhibitors in children. Arch Dis Child 2018; 103: 78–82.
  • 48. Li S, Shi S, Chen F, Lin J. The effects of baclofen for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2014; 2014: 307805.
  • 49. Omari TI, Benninga MA, Sansom L, et al. Effect of baclofen on esophagogastric motility and gastroesophageal reflux in children with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr 2006; 149: 468–474.
  • 50. Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Kohn GP, et al. Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 2647–2669.
  • 51. Moore M, Afaneh C, Benhuri D, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease: a review of surgical decision making. World J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 8: 77–83.
  • 52. Mauritz FA, van Herwaarden‐Lindeboom MY, Stomp W, et al. The effects and efficacy of antireflux surgery in children with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 2011; 15: 1872–1878.
  • 53. Mauritz FA, Conchillo JM, van Heurn LWE, et al. Effects and efficacy of laparoscopic fundoplication in children with GERD: a prospective, multicenter study. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 1101–1110.
  • 54. Kubiak R, Spitz L, Kiely EM, et al. Effectiveness of fundoplication in early infancy. J Pediatr Surg 1999; 34: 295–299.
  • 55. Singendonk M, Goudswaard E, Langendam M, et al. Prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms in infants and children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2019; 68: 811–817.
  • 56. Dent J, El‐Serag HB, Wallander MA, Johansson S. Epidemiology of gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut 2005; 54: 710–717.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Migraine: a brain state amenable to therapy

Michael Eller and Peter J Goadsby
Med J Aust 2020; 212 (1): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50435
Published online: 13 January 2020

Summary

  • Migraine affects over a billion people worldwide in any year and is the second most common cause of years lost due to disability. Not “just a headache”, morbidity washes though society and carries a substantial economic and social cost.
  • Understanding of migraine pathophysiology has progressed significantly. Animal models and functional neuroimaging have yielded significant insight into brain structures that mediate migraine symptoms. The role of small peptides as neurotransmitters within this network has been elucidated, allowing the generation of novel therapeutic approaches that have been validated by randomised placebo‐controlled trials.
  • Migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Treatment of migraine should be proactive. An acute and, when indicated, preventive strategy should be formulated with the patient. Comorbid medication overuse must be supportively managed.
  • Migraine‐specific medications are making their way from bench to bedside. They promise an improved safety profile and ease of use in comparison to older, repurposed medications. Devices promise a non‐drug alternative should patients prefer. The migraine understanding and treatment landscape is changing rapidly.

  • 1 Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, VIC
  • 2 UCSF Headache Center, San Francisco, CA, USA


Correspondence: peter.goadsby@ucsf.edu

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2017; 390: 1211–1259.
  • 2. Vetvik KG, MacGregor EA. Sex differences in the epidemiology, clinical features, and pathophysiology of migraine. Lancet Neurol 2016; 16: 76–87.
  • 3. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, et al. Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology 2007; 68: 343–349.
  • 4. Buse DC, Pearlman SH, Reed ML, et al. Opioid use and dependence among persons with migraine: results of the AMPP Study. Headache 2012; 52: 18–36.
  • 5. Linde M, Gustavsson A, Stovner LJ, et al. The cost of headache disorders in Europe: the Eurolight project. Eur J Neurol 2011; 19: 703–711.
  • 6. Goadsby PJ, Holland PR, Martins‐Oliveira M, et al. Pathophysiology of migraine: a disorder of sensory processing. Physiol Rev 2017; 97: 553–622.
  • 7. Maniyar FH, Sprenger T, Monteith T, et al. Brain activations in the premonitory phase of nitroglycerin‐triggered migraine attacks. Brain 2014; 137: 232–241.
  • 8. Amin FM, Asghar MS, Houggard A, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography of intracranial and extracranial arteries in patients with spontaneous migraine without aura: a cross‐sectional study. Lancet Neurol 2013; 12: 454–461.
  • 9. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 2018; 38: 1–211.
  • 10. Brennan KC, Bates EA, Shapiro RE, et al. Casein kinase iδ mutations in familial migraine and advanced sleep phase. Sci Transl Med 2013; 5: 183ra56.
  • 11. de Vries B, Anttila V, Freilinger T, et al. Systematic re‐evaluation of genes from candidate gene association studies in migraine using a large genome‐wide association data set. Cephalalgia 2016; 36: 604–614.
  • 12. Shurks M, Rist P, Bigal M, et al. Migraine and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ 2009; 339: b3914.
  • 13. Adelborg K, Szeplegeti S, Holland‐Bill L, et al. Migraine and the risk of cardiovascular diseases: Danish population based matched cohort study. BMJ 2018; 360: k96.
  • 14. Riesco N, Pérez‐Alvarez AI, Verano L, et al. Prevalence of cranial autonomic parasympathetic symptoms in chronic migraine: usefulness of a new scale. Cephalalgia 2015; 36: 346–350.
  • 15. May A, Goadsby PJ. The trigeminovascular system in humans: pathophysiologic implications for primary headache syndromes of the neural influences on the cerebral circulation. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1999; 19: 115–127.
  • 16. Eross E, Dodick D, Eross M. The Sinus, Allergy and Migraine Study (SAMS). Headache 2007; 47: 213–224.
  • 17. Quintela E, Castillo J, Munoz P, Pascual J. Premonitory and resolution symptoms in migraine: a prospective study in 100 unselected patients. Cephalalgia 2006; 26: 1051–1060.
  • 18. Giffin NJ, Ruggiero L, Lipton RB, et al. Premonitory symptoms in migraine: an electronic diary study. Neurology 2003; 60: 935–940.
  • 19. Giffin NJ, Lipton RB, Silberstein SD, et al. The migraine postdrome. Neurology 2016; 87: 309–313.
  • 20. Tepper SJ, Dahlöf CGH, Dowson A, et al. Prevalence and diagnosis of migraine in patients consulting their physician with a complaint of headache: data from the Landmark Study. Headache 2004; 44: 856–864.
  • 21. Lipton RB, Dodick D, Sadovsky R, et al. A self‐administered screener for migraine in primary care: the ID Migraine validation study. Neurology 2003; 61: 375–382.
  • 22. Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Excessive acute migraine medication use and migraine progression. Neurology 2008; 71: 1821–1828.
  • 23. Buse DC, Manack A, Serrano D, et al. Sociodemographic and comorbidity profiles of chronic migraine and episodic migraine sufferers. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010; 81: 428–432.
  • 24. Eller M, Goadsby P. MRI in headache. Expert Rev Neurother 2013; 13: 263–273.
  • 25. Mannix LK, Savani N, Landy S, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of naratriptan for short‐term prevention of menstrually related migraine: data from two randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies. Headache 2007; 47: 1037–1049.
  • 26. Eller M, Gelfand AA, Riggins NY, et al. Exacerbation of headache during dihydroergotamine for chronic migraine does not alter outcome. Neurology 2016; 86: 856–859.
  • 27. Williams DR, Stark RJ. Intravenous lignocaine (lidocaine) infusion for the treatment of chronic daily headache with substantial medication overuse. Cephalalgia 2003; 23: 963–971.
  • 28. Charles A. Migraine. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 553–561.
  • 29. Goadsby PJ, Sprenger T. Current practice and future directions in the prevention and acute management of migraine. Lancet Neurol 2010; 9: 285–298.
  • 30. Schoenen J, Coppola G. Efficacy and mode of action of external trigeminal neurostimulation in migraine. Expert Rev Neurotherapeutics 2018; 18: 545–555.
  • 31. Chou DE, Gross GJ, Casadei CH, Yugrakh MS. External trigeminal nerve stimulation for the acute treatment of migraine: open‐label trial on safety and efficacy. Neuromodulation 2017; 20: 678–683.
  • 32. Goadsby PJ, Lipton RB, Ferrari MD. Migraine — current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 257–270.
  • 33. Diener H‐C, Bussone G, Van Oene JC, et al. Topiramate reduces headache days in chronic migraine: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Cephalalgia 2007; 27: 814–823.
  • 34. Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, Hallström Y, et al. A controlled trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 2123–2132.
  • 35. Tepper S, Ashina M, Reuter U, et al. Safety and efficacy of erenumab for preventive treatment of chronic migraine: a randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 2017; 16: 425–434.
  • 36. Turner DP, Golding AN, Houle TT. Using a graphical risk tool to examine willingness to take migraine prophylactic medications. Pain 2016; 157: 2226–2234.
  • 37. Hepp Z, Dodick DW, Varon SF, et al. Persistence and switching patterns of oral migraine prophylactic medications among patients with chronic migraine: a retrospective claims analysis. Cephalalgia 2016; 37: 470–485.
  • 38. Jackson JL, Cogbill E, Santana‐Davila R, et al. A comparative effectiveness meta‐analysis of drugs for the prophylaxis of migraine headache. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0130733.
  • 39. Stovner LJ, Linde M, Gravdahl GB, et al. A comparative study of candesartan versus propranolol for migraine prophylaxis: a randomised, triple‐blind, placebo‐controlled, double cross‐over study. Cephalalgia 2013; 34: 523–532.
  • 40. Diener H‐C, Dodick DW, Goadsby PJ, et al. Utility of topiramate for the treatment of patients with chronic migraine in the presence or absence of acute medication overuse. Cephalalgia 2009; 29: 1021–1027.
  • 41. Linde M, Mulleners WM, Chronicle EP, McCrory DC. Valproate (valproic acid or sodium valproate or a combination of the two) for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (6): CD010611.
  • 42. Karsan N, Palethorpe D, Rattanawong W, et al. Flunarizine in migraine‐related headache prevention: results from 200 patients treated in the UK. Eur J Neurol 2018; 25: 811–817.
  • 43. Schoenen J, Jacquy J, Lenaerts M. Effectiveness of high‐dose riboflavin in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology 1998; 50: 466–470.
  • 44. Dodick DW, Turkel CC, DeGryse RE, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: pooled results from the double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled phases of the PREEMPT Clinical Program. Headache 2010; 50: 921–936.
  • 45. Ashina M, Tepper S, Brandes JL, et al. Efficacy and safety of erenumab (AMG334) in chronic migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure: a subgroup analysis of a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Cephalalgia 2018; 38: 1611–1621.
  • 46. Reuter U, Goadsby PJ, Lanteri‐Minet M, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of erenumab in episodic migraine patients who previously failed 2–4 preventive treatments: a randomised placebo‐controlled phase 3b study. Lancet 2018; 392: 2280–2287.
  • 47. Schoenen JE. Migraine prevention with a supraorbital transcutaneous stimulator: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology 2016; 86: 201–202.
  • 48. Silberstein SD, Calhoun AH, Lipton RB, et al. Chronic migraine headache prevention with noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation: the EVENT study. Neurology 2016; 87: 529–538.
  • 49. Blumenfeld AM, Stark RJ, Freeman MC, et al. Long‐term study of the efficacy and safety of OnabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine: COMPEL study. J Headache Pain 2018; 19: 13.
  • 50. Lassen LH, Haderslev PA, Jacobsen VB, et al. CGRP may play a causative role in migraine. Cephalalgia 2002; 22: 54–61.
  • 51. Edvinsson L, Warfvinge K. Recognizing the role of CGRP and CGRP receptors in migraine and its treatment. Cephalalgia 2017; 39: 366–373.
  • 52. Goadsby PJ, Edvinsson L. The trigeminovascular system and migraine: studies characterizing cerebrovascular and neuropeptide changes seen in humans and cats. Ann Neurol 1993; 33: 48–56.
  • 53. Russell FA, King R, Smillie SJ, et al. Calcitonin gene‐related peptide: physiology and pathophysiology. Physiol Rev 2014; 94: 1099–1142.
  • 54. Walker CS, Eftekhari S, Bower RL, et al. A second trigeminal CGRP receptor: function and expression of the AMY 1receptor. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2015; 2: 595–608.
  • 55. Goadsby PJ. Bench to bedside advances in the 21st century for primary headache disorders: migraine treatments for migraine patients. Brain 2016; 139: 2571–2577.
  • 56. Starling AJ, Tepper SJ, Marmura MJ, et al. A multicenter, prospective, single arm, open label, observational study of sTMS for migraine prevention (ESPOUSE Study). Cephalalgia 2017; 38: 1038–1048.
  • 57. Bhola R, Kinsella E, Giffin N, et al. Single‐pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) for the acute treatment of migraine: evaluation of outcome data for the UK post market pilot program. J Headache Pain 2015; 16: 535.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Pagination

Subscribe to