Podcasts about Monteith

Despite advances in epilepsy management, disparities and lack of inclusion of many people with epilepsy are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Improving awareness and promoting diversity in research participation can advance treatment for underserved populations and improve trust. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, PhD, FAAN speaks Dave F. Clarke, MBBS, FAES, author of the article “Diversity and Underserved Patient Populations in Epilepsy,” in the Continuum® February 2025 Epilepsy issue. Dr. Monteith is a Continuum® Audio interviewer and an associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Clarke is the Kozmetsky Family Foundation Endowed Chair of Pediatric Epilepsy and Chief or Comprehensive Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin in Austin, Texas. Additional Resources Read the article: Diversity and Underserved Patient Populations in Epilepsy Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @HeadacheMD Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, which features conversations with Continuum's guest editors and authors who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum Journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article and have access to exclusive interviews not featured on the podcast. Please visit the link in the episode notes for more information on the article, subscribing to the journal, and how to get CME. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today I'm interviewing Dr Dave Clarke about his article on diversity and underserved patient populations in epilepsy, which appears in the February 2025 Continuum issue on epilepsy. So why don't you introduce yourself to our audience? Dr Clarke: Sure. My name is Dr Dave Clarke, as alluded to. I'm presently at the University of Texas in Austin, originating from much farther south. I'm from Antigua, but have been here for quite a while working within the field in epilepsy surgery, but more and more getting involved in outreach, access to care, and equity of healthcare in epilepsy. Dr Monteith: And how did you get involved in this kind of work? Dr Clarke: That's an amazing question. You know, I did it in a bit of a inside out fashion. I initially started working in the field and trying to get access to persons in the Caribbean that didn't have any neurological care or investigative studies, but very quickly realized that persons around the corner here in Texas and wherever I've worked have had the exact same problems, getting access via fiscal or otherwise epilepsy care, or geographically getting access, with so few having neurologists close at hand. Therefore, I started working both on a regional, national, and it transcended to a global scale. Dr Monteith: Wow, so you're just everywhere. Dr Clarke: Well, building bridges. I've found building bridges and helping with knowledge and garnering knowledge, you can expand your reach without actually moving, which is quite helpful. Dr Monteith: Yeah. So why don't you tell us why you think this work is so important in issues of diversity, underserved populations, and of course, access to epilepsy care? Dr Clarke: Sure, not a problem. And I think every vested person in this can give you a different spiel as to why they think it's important. So, I'll add in a few facts pertaining to access, but also tell you about why I think personally that it's not only important, but it will improve care for all and improve what you believe you could do for a patient. Because the sad thing is to have a good outcome in the United States presently, we have over three hundred epilepsy centers, but they have about eight or nine states that don't have any epilepsy centers at all. And even within states themselves, people have to travel up to eight hours, i.e., in Texas, to get adequate epilepsy care. So that's one layer. Even if you have a epilepsy center around the corner, independent of just long wait times, if you have a particular race or ethnicity, we've found out that wait may be even longer or you may be referred to a general practitioner moreso than being referred to an epilepsy center. Then you add in layers of insurance or lack thereof, which is a big concern regardless of who you are; poverty, which is a big concern; and the layers just keep adding more. Culture, etcetera, etcetera. If you could just break down some of those barriers, it has been shown quite a few years ago that once you get to an epilepsy center, you can negate some of those factors. You can actually reduce time to access and you can improve care. So, that's why I'm so passionate about this, because something could potentially be done about it. Dr Monteith: That's cool. So, it sounds like you have some strategies, some strategies for us. Dr Clarke: Indeed. And you know, this is a growth and this is a learning curve for me and will be for others. But I think on a very local, one-to-one scale, the initial strategy I would suggest is you have to be a good listener. Because we don't know how, when, where or why people are coming to us for their concerns. And in order to judge someone, if they may not have had a follow-up visit or they may not have gotten to us after five medications, the onus may not have been on that person. In other words, as we learned when we were in medical school, history is extremely important, but social history, cultural history, that's also just as important when we're trying to create bridges. The second major thing that we have to learn is we can't do this alone. So, without others collaborating with us outside of even our fields, the social worker who will engage, the community worker who will discuss the translator for language; unless you treat those persons with respect and engage with those persons to help you to mitigate problems, you'll not get very far. And then we'll talk about more, but the last thing I'll say now is they have so many organizations out there, the Institute of Medicine or the International League Against Epilepsy or members of the American Epilepsy Society, that have ways, ideas, papers, and articles that can help guide you as to how better mitigate many of these problems. Dr Monteith: Great. So, you already mentioned a lot of things. What are some things that you feel absolutely the reader should take away in reading your article? You mentioned already listening skills, the importance of interdisciplinary work, including social work, and that there are strategies that we can use to help reduce some of this access issues. But give me some of the essential points and then we'll dive in. Dr Clarke: OK. I think first and foremost we have to lay the foundation in my mind and realize what exactly is happening. If you are Native American, of African descent, Hispanic, Latinx, geographically not in a region where care can be delivered, choosing one time to epilepsy surgery may be delayed twice, three, four times that of someone of white descent. If you are within certain regions in the US where they may have eight, nine, ten, fourteen epilepsy centers, you may get to that center within two to three years. But if you're in an area where they have no centers at all, or you live in the Dakotas, it may be very difficult to get to an individual that could provide that care for you. That's very, very basic. But a few things have happened a few years ago and even more recently that can help. COVID created this groundswell of ambulatory engagement and ambulatory care. I think that can help to mitigate time to get into that person and improving access. In saying that, there are many obstacles to that, but that's what we have to work towards: that virtual engagement and virtual care. That would suggest in some instances to some persons that it will take away the one-to-one care that you may get with persons coming to you. But I guarantee that you will not lose patients because of this, because there's too big a vacuum. Only 22% of persons that should actually get to epilepsy centers actually get to epilepsy centers. So, I think we can start with that foundation, and you can go to the article and learn a lot more about what the problems are. Because if you don't know what the problems are, you can't come up with solutions. Dr Monteith: Just give us a few of the most persistent inequities and epilepsy care? Dr Clarke: Time to seeing a patient, very persistent. And that's both a disparity, a deficiency, and an inequity. And if you allow me, I'll just explain the slight but subtle difference. So, we know that time to surgery in epilepsy in persons that need epilepsy surgery can be as long as seventeen years. That's for everyone, so that's a deficiency in care. I just mentioned that some sociodemographic populations may not get the same care as someone else, and that's a disparity between one versus the other. Health equity, whether it be from NIH or any other definition, suggests that you should get equitable care between one person and the other. And that brings in not only medical, medicolegal or potential bias, that we may have one person versus the other. So, there's a breakdown as to those different layers that may occur. And in that I'm telling you what some of the potential differences are. Dr Monteith: And so, you mentioned, it comes up, race and ethnicity being a major issue as well as some of the geographic factors. How does that impact diagnosis and really trying to care for our patients? Dr Clarke: So again, I'm going to this article or going to, even. prior articles. It has been shown by many, and most recently in New Jersey, that if you're black, Hispanic, Latin- Latinx, it takes you greater than two times the time to surgery. Reduced time to surgery significantly increases morbidity. It potentially increases mortality, as has been shown by a colleague of mine presently in Calgary. And independent of that, we don't look at the other things, the other socially related things. Driving, inability to work, inability to be adequately educated, the stigma related to that in various cultures, various countries. So, that deficit not only increased the probability of having seizures, but we have to look at the umbrella as to what it does. It significantly impacts quality of life of that individual and, actually, the individuals around them. Dr Monteith: So, what are some of these drivers, and how can we address them, or at least identify them, in our clinic? Dr Clarke: That's a question that's rather difficult to answer. And not because there aren't ideas about it, but there's actually mitigating those ideas or changing those ideas we're just presently trying to do. Although outlines have been given. So, in about 2013, the federal government suggested outlines to improve access and to reduce these inequities. And I'll just give you a few of them. One of those suggestions was related to language and having more improved and readily available translators. Something simple, and that could actually foster discussions and time to better management. Another suggestion was try to train more persons from underserved populations, persons of color. Reason being, it has been shown in the social sciences and it is known in the medical sciences that, if you speak to a person of similar culture, you tend to have a better rapport, you tend to be more compliant, and that track would move forward, and it reduces bias. Now we don't have that presently, and I'm not sure if we'll have that in the near future, although we're trying. So then, within your centers, if you have trainings on cultural sensitivity, or if you have engagements and lectures about how you can engage persons from different populations, those are just some very simple pearls that can improve care. This has been updated several times with the then-Institute of Medicine in 2012, 2013, they came out with, in my mind, a pretty amazing article---but I'm very biased---in which they outline a number of strategic initiatives that could be taken to improve research, improve clinical care, improve health equity through health services research, to move the field forward, and to improve overall care. They updated this in 2020, and it's a part of the 2030 federal initiative not only for epilepsy, but to improve overarching care. All of this is written in bits and pieces and referenced in the article. To add icing on top, the World Health Organization, through advocacy of neurological groups as well as the International League Against Epilepsy and the AES, came out with the Intersectoral Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Diseases, which advocates for parallel improvement in overall global care. And the United States have signed on to it, and that have lit a fire to our member organizations like the American Epilepsy Society, American Academy of Neurology, and others, trying to create initiatives to address this here. I started off by saying this was difficult because, you know, we have debated epilepsy care through 1909 when the International League against Epilepsy was founded, and we have continually come up with ways to try and advance care. But this have been the most difficult and critical because there's social dynamics and social history and societal concerns that have negated us moving forward in this direction. But fortunately, I think we're moving in that direction presently. That's my hope. And the main thing we have to do is try to sustain that. Dr Monteith: So, you talked about the importance of these global initiatives, which is huge, and other sectors outside of neurology. Like for example, technology, you spoke about telemedicine. I think you were referring to telemedicine with COVID. What other technologies that are more specific to the field of epilepsy, some of these monitorings that maybe can be done? Dr Clarke: I was just going to just going to jump on that. Thank you so much for asking. Dr Monteith: I have no disclosures in this field. I think it's important and exciting to think how can we increase access and even access to monitoring some of these technologies. That might be expensive, which is another issue, but…. Dr Clarke: So, the main things in epilepsy diagnosis and management: you want to hear from the patient history, you want to see what the seizures look like, and then you want to find ways in which to monitor those seizures. Hearing from the patient, they have these questionnaires that have been out there, and this is local, regional, global, many of them standardized in English and Spanish. Our colleagues in Boston actually created quite a neat one in English and Spanish that some people are using. Ecuador has one. We have created someone- something analogous. And those questionnaires can be sent out virtually and you can retrieve them. But sometimes seeing is believing. So, video uploads of seizures, especially the cell phone, I think has been management-changing for the field of epilepsy. The thing you have to do however, is do that in a HIPAA-compliant way. And several studies are ongoing. In my mind, one of the better studies here was done on the East Coast, but another similar study, to be unnamed, but again, written out in the articles. When you go into these apps, you can actually type in a history and upload a video, but the feed is not only going to you, it may be going to the primary care physician. So, it not only helps in one way in you educating the patient, but you educate that primary care physician and they become extenders and providers. I must add here my colleagues, because we can't do without them. Arguably in some instances, some of the most important persons to refer patients, that's the APPs, the PAs and the nurse practitioners out there, that help to refer patients and share patients with us. So, that's the video uploads they're seeing. But then the other really cool part that we're doing now is the ambulatory world of EEGs. Ceribell, Zeto, to name of few, in which you could potentially put the EEG leads on persons with or without the EEG technologist wirelessly and utilize the clouds to review the EEGs. It's not perfect just yet, but that person that has to travel eight hours away from me, if I could do that and negate that travel when they don't have money to pay for travel or they have some potential legal issues or insurance-related issues and I could read the EEG, discuss with them via telemedicine their care, it actually improves access significantly. I'm going to throw in one small twist that, again, it's not perfect. We're now trying to monitor via autonomic features, heart rate movement and others, for seizures and alert family members, parents, because although about 100,000 people may be affected with epilepsy, we're talking about 500,000 people who are also affected that are caregivers, affiliates, husbands, wives, etcetera. Just picture it: you have a child, let's say three, four years old and every time they have a seizure- or not every time, but 80% of times when they have a seizure, it alerts you via your watch or it alerts you in your room. It actually gives that child a sense of a bit more freedom. It empowers you to do something about it because you can understand here. It potentially negates significant morbidity. I won't stretch it to say SUDEP, but hopefully the time will come when actually it can prevent not only morbidity, but may prevent death. And I think that's the direction we are going in, to use technology to our benefit, but in a HIPAA-compliant way and in a judicious way in order to make sure that we not only don't overtreat, but at the end of the day, we have the patient as number one, meaning everything is vested towards that patient and do no harm. Dr Monteith: Great. One thing you had mentioned earlier was that there are even some simple approaches, efficiency approaches that we can use to try and optimize care for all in our clinics. Give me what I need to know, or do. Give me what I need to do. Dr Clarke: Yeah, I'll get personal as to what we're trying to do here, if you don't mind. The initial thing we did, we actually audited care and time to care delivery. And then we tried to figure out what we could do to improve that access and time to care, triaging, etcetera. A very, very simple thing that can be done, but you have to look at costs, is to have somebody that actually coordinates getting persons in and out of your center. If you are a neurologist that works in private practice, that could potentially be a nurse being associated directly one-and-one with one of the major centers, a third- or fourth-level center. That coordination is key. Educate your nurses about epilepsy care and what the urgent situations are because it will take away a lot of your headache and your midnight calls because they'll be able to know what to do during the day. Video uploads, as I suggested, regardless of the EMR that you have, figure out a way that a family could potentially send a video to you, because that has significantly helped in reducing investigative studies. Triaging appropriately for us to know what patients we can and cannot see. Extenders has helped me significantly, and that's where I'll end. So, as stated, they had many neurologists and epileptologists, and utilizing appropriately trained nurse practitioners or residents, engaging with them equally, and/or social workers and coordinators, are very helpful. So hopefully that's just some low-hanging fruit that can be done to improve that care. Dr Monteith: So why don't you give us some of your major takeaways to how we can improve epilepsy care for all people? Dr Clarke: I've alluded to some already, but I like counts of threes and fives. So, I think one major thing, which in my mind is a major takeaway, is cultural sensitivity. I don't think that can go too far in improving care of persons with epilepsy. The second thing is, if you see a patient that have tried to adequately use medications and they're still having seizures, please triage them. Please send them to a third- or fourth-level epilepsy center and demand that that third- or fourth-level epilepsy center communicate with you, because that patient will eventually come back and see you. The third thing---I said three---: listen to your patients. Because those patients will actually help and tell you what is needed. And I'm not only talking about listening to them medication-wise. I know we have time constraints, but if you can somehow address some of those social needs of the patients, that will also not only improve care, but negate the multiple calls that you may get from a patient. Dr Monteith: You mentioned a lot already. This is really wonderful. But what I really want to know is what you're most hopeful about. Dr Clarke: I have grandiose hopes, I'll tell you. I'll tell you that from the beginning. My hope is when we look at this in ten years and studies are done to look at equitable care, at least when it comes to race, ethnicity, insurance, we'll be able to minimize, if not end, inequitable care. Very similar to the intersectoral action plan in epilepsy by 2030. I'll tell you something that suggests, and I think it's global and definitely regional, the plan suggests that 90% of persons with epilepsy should know about their epilepsy, 80% of persons with epilepsy should be able to receive appropriate care, and 70% of persons with epilepsy should have adequately controlled epilepsy. 90, 80, 70. If we can get close to that, that would be a significant achievement in my mind. So, when I'm chilling out in my home country on a fishing boat, reading EEGs in ten years, if I can read that, that would have been an achievement that not necessarily I would have achieved, but at least hopefully I would have played a very small part in helping to achieve. That's what I think. Dr Monteith: Awesome. Dr Clarke: I appreciate you asking me that, because I've never said it like that before. In my own mind, it actually helped with clarity. Dr Monteith: I ask great questions. Dr Clarke: There you go. Dr Monteith: Thank you so much. I really- I really appreciate your passion for this area. And the work that you do it's really important, as you mentioned, on a regional, national, and certainly on a global level, important to our patients and even some very simple concepts that we may not always think about on a day-to-day basis. Dr Clarke: Oh, I appreciate it. And you know, I'm always open to ideas. So, if others, including listeners, have ideas, please don't hesitate in reaching out. Dr Monteith: I'm sure you're going to get some messages now. Dr Clarke: Awesome. Thank you so much. Dr Monteith: Thank you. I've been interviewing Dr Dave Clarke about his article on diversity and underserved patient populations in epilepsy, which appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on epilepsy. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use this link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/audioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this latest episode of Wild Things & Wild Places, host Joshua Coursey sits down with Kevin Monteith from the Monteith Shop to get into the exciting advancements of the Muley Fanatic Foundation Fellowship program. The discussion highlights the second MFF Fellow, a pivotal role designed to support groundbreaking research and conservation efforts. But what exactly is an MFF Fellow? Kevin and Josh break it all down, explaining how this fellowship empowers young scientists to contribute to innovative wildlife studies. From exploring the intricate world of mule deer migration to addressing key conservation challenges, this program is helping to shape the future of wildlife management. Listeners will also get an inside look at the Monteith Shop's latest research projects and programs, showcasing the incredible work being done by this dynamic group.This episode offers a glimpse into the amazing direction the Muley Fanatic Foundation and the Monteith Shop are taking to ensure the next generation of conservationists has the tools and support needed to make a difference. Don't miss out on furthering the journey with Wild Things & Wild Places. Become a member of the Muley Fanatic Foundation and help make a difference. Join an organization that gets things done. Find out more here.  

Anti-amyloid therapies provide the first FDA-approved option to alter AD pathology, but an understanding of overall utility and value to patients remains in its infancy. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with David S. Geldmacher, MD, FACP, FANA, author of the article “Treatment of Alzheimer Disease” in the Continuum® December 2024 Dementia issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Geldmacher is a professor and Warren Family Endowed Chair in Neurology and the director of the Division of Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, Department of Neurology, Marnix E. Heersink School of Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham in Birmingham, Alabama. Additional Resources Read the article: Treatment of Alzheimer Disease Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Transcript Full interview transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, which features conversations with Continuum's guest editors and authors who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article and have access to exclusive interviews not featured on the podcast. Please visit the link in the episode notes for more information on the article, subscribing to the journal, and how to get CME. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith. Today, I'm interviewing Dr David Geldmacher about his article on treatment of Alzheimer's disease, which appears in the December 2024 Continuum issue on dementia. Welcome to our podcast, Dr Geldmacher. How are you?  Dr Geldmacher: I'm very well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.  Dr Monteith: Yeah. So, why don't you introduce yourself to our audience? Dr Geldmacher: Sure. I'm David Geldmacher. I'm a professor of neurology at the University of Alabama in Birmingham and I lead the division of Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology.  Dr Monteith: So, I'm really excited about this, to personally learn, and I know that or neurology community is also really excited about this interview. So, why don't we start off with your main objective.  Dr Geldmacher: So, my main goal in the article was to review the FDA-approved pharmacologic treatments for dementia. There's lots of ways of thinking about treatment of dementia; psychosocial, caregiver support, and so forth. But I really wanted to focus on the issues of drug treatment because that's what has been our backbone for a long time and now has recently expanded.  Dr Monteith: Why don't we talk a little bit about, first of all, the boom in the field? What's that been like?  Dr Geldmacher: So, the big change in the field is over the last several years, we've had treatments become available that actually attack the underlying Alzheimer pathology, and that's new and different. For decades, we've been able to treat the symptoms of the disease, but this is the first time we've really been able to get to the root of the pathology and look toward removing amyloid plaques from the brain.  Dr Monteith: Let's step back a little bit and talk about the framework of diagnosis and how that leads into the therapeutic potential. I know you're going to dive into some of the biologics, but we should probably talk about the kind of holistic approach to considering the diagnosis. Dr Geldmacher: Sure. So, you know, when someone comes to the clinic with memory complaints, our question we have to ask is, is this neurologic origin, a structural origin like Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia? Are there complicating factors, the software issues of mood disorders and sleep disorders and pain that can all magnify those symptoms? The clinical reasoning is a critical part of that, but in Alzheimer's disease, typically the problems revolve around difficulty forming new memories of events and activities, the episodic memory. And then it's often accompanied by changes in word finding and semantic knowledge. And those are the things that we look for in the clinic to really point toward an AD diagnosis. And then we support it with exclusion of other causes through blood work and identification of patterns of brain atrophy on MRI. And then most recently in the last couple of years, we've been able to add to that molecular imaging for amyloid with PET scans as well as, most recently, blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's pathology. So, it's really been a revolution in the diagnosis over these last several years.  Dr Monteith: And when approaching patients or populations of individuals, there seems to be a real full spectrum with looking at the societal burden, the biological impact, of course, risk factors of primary prevention, and now this whole area of brain health and secondary prevention. How do you kind of tie all of this together when talking to patients and family members?  Dr Geldmacher: Sure. So, the approaches for brain health apply to everyone. In basically every clinic visited, our brain aging and memory clinic, we reviewed lifestyle approaches to brain health like regular physical exercise, healthy diet, cognitive and social stimulation. And those are fundamental to the approach to everyone, whether they have cognitive impairments that are measurable or not. These are all things that are good for our brain health. And then, you know, focusing on the vascular risk factors in particular and working with the patient and their primary care team to ensure that lipids and blood sugar and blood pressure are all in good healthy ranges and being appropriately treated.  Dr Monteith: You know, there's this kind of whole considerations of clinically meaningful endpoints and clinical trials, and even when we're talking to our patients. What would you say the field has kind of identified has the best endpoints in helping patients? Would you call it impaired daily function? Is that like the best hard endpoint? Obviously, there are other things such as caregiver burden, but you know, how do you approach assessing patients? Dr Geldmacher: Defining the endpoints is very difficult. Typically, if we talk to patients and their families, they would like to have better memory or improve memory. How that applies in everyday life actually is daily function. And so, we focus very much on daily function. And when I talk about our therapies, whether they're symptomatic therapies or the new disease-modifying therapies, I really talk about maintenance of function and delays and decline or slowing of decline, helping to foster the person's independence in the activities that they have and be able to sustain that over the longer term.  Dr Monteith: And when thinking about diagnosis- and we're going to get into treatments, but when thinking about the diagnosis, and of course, it's full-spectrum from mild cognitive impairment to moderate and severe forms of dementia, but who should have CSF testing and PET imaging? Obviously, these are invasive, somewhat invasive and expensive tests. Should all people that walk in the door that have memory complaints? How do you stratify who should have tests? Dr Geldmacher: I think about this in a big funnel, basically, and the starting point of the funnel, of course, is the person with memory complaints. Then there's that neurologic reasoning. Are these memory complaints consistent with what we expect from the anatomy of Alzheimer's disease, with atrophy in in the hippocampus and temporal lobe? Do they have episodic memory loss or not? That first step is really trying to characterize, do the clinical patterns act like those of Alzheimer's disease or not? And then we follow the Academy of Neurology guidelines, looking for reversible sources of cognitive decline, things like B12 deficiency and depression, sleep disorders and the like, and try to exclude those. We start with structural imaging with everyone, and MRI, typically, that will help us understand vascular burden and patterns of atrophy, looking for things like mesial temporal atrophy or precuneus atrophy that are characteristic of Alzheimer's disease. If those things are all pointing in the direction of AD as opposed to something else, then typically before moving on to CSF or PET scan, we will use blood-based biomarkers, which are one of the big changes in the field in the last year or so, and there are now multiple panels of these available. The downside is they are typically not covered by insurance. On the other hand, they can really help us identify who is likely to have a positive PET scan or positive findings on CSF. We start to provide that counseling and information to the patient before they get to those more definitive tests. We can push people in the other direction. We can say, your blood-based biomarkers are negative or do not indicate AD as the most likely source of your condition now, so let's treat other things. Let's see what else we can focus on. The blood-based biomarkers are now, in our clinic at least, the critical choke point between the routine workout that we've always done on everyone and then the more advanced workup of proving amyloid pathology with CSF or a PET scan. Dr Monteith: How sensitive are those blood biomarkers and how early are they positive?  Dr Geldmacher: The sensitivity is generally pretty good, in the ninety plus percent range on average and it depends on which panel. And as you point out, when in the course of symptoms that they're done, we know that they become positive and presymptomatic or asymptomatic people. We're using these kinds of markers to screen people for prevention trials. So, I think when someone is symptomatic, they're a good indicator of the presence or absence of AD pathology. Now that doesn't mean the AD pathology is the sole cause of their symptoms. And so, we still need to think about those other things like sleep and mood and so forth. But they do point us in the in the direction of Alzheimer's change.  Dr Monteith: So why don't we talk about some of the more standard older treatments, and it's also important to leave with kind of some rational approach to when we start and what should we be counseling our patients on. So why don't we start with the older, you know, choline esterase inhibitors and then some of the MDA- I guess there's only one modulator, SEPTA modulator. Dr Geldmacher: So, I've been really fortunate in my career span, the time from the first of those symptomatic agents reaching the market in 1993 to seeing the disease modifying drugs enter the market now. I think most neurologists actually have entered practice after those clinical trials of the colon esterase inhibitors were published. So, one of my goals in this article was to review that primary data and what can we expect from those symptomatic drugs. We know that they are inconsistently effective in mild cognitive impairment, and the Academy of Neurology guidelines says there is not strong evidence to use them in mild cognitive impairment. But in mild AD and beyond, the cholinesterase inhibitors provide meaningful benefits. They delay decline, they can delay nursing home placement. They reduce overall costs of care. So, I think they provide real value. So, in the article I have reviewed what the data looked like on those. My approach is to start with oral Donepezil at five milligrams and increase it to ten in everyone who tolerates the five. If for whatever reason the oral Donepezil is not well tolerated, I'll switch to transdermal rivastigmine to help improve tolerability. There are very few head to head comparisons, but nothing suggests that one of the cholinesterase inhibitors is superior to the other for clinical outcomes, and there's no evidence to support conjoint use of more than one at a time. Should someone be showing decline then on typical cholinesterase inhibitor therapy - and people will, it's often delayed, but the decline will reemerge - then I will add the NMDA receptor, a modulator memantine and titrate that up to full dosing, either 10 mg twice a day for the conventional release or 22 mg extended release. And at that point we're sort of on maximal pharmacologic therapy for Alzheimer's disease. These agents can provide some benefit in other conditions, they're off-label except for Lewy body disease where rivastigmine is labeled. But they can provide benefit across different conditions. And there's some preliminary data, for instance, of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors being helpful in vascular cognitive impairment. So, I will use them, but I expect the greatest response when someone really does follow the patterns of Alzheimer's disease.  Dr Monteith: And you have a great chart, by the way, and nice figures looking at some of the meta-analyses on cognitive outcomes as well as functional outcomes. So, thank you for that.  Dr Geldmacher: In general, all of those tables favor treatment over placebo in the domains of cognition, daily function, neuropsychiatric symptoms. And it's that consistency of result that lets me know that we really are seeing a drug effect, that it's not a class effect with those, that we really are helping our patients. It's not like some studies are positive and some are negative. They are very consistently positive. Small magnitude, but consistently positive.  Dr Monteith: And I know we have a lot of patients coming in where, at least, their caregivers are complaining about agitation, and sleep is also a problem for others. And so how do you help that patient? I know you have a good algorithm that also you included in your article, but why don't you summarize how we should approach these symptoms? Dr Geldmacher: Sure. So, for nonpsychotic agitation, you know, just restlessness, wandering, pacing and so forth, my first choice is an off-label use of citalopram. And there is good clinical trials evidence to support that. if someone has psychotic agitation that is with delusions or hallucinations and so forth, I think we do need to move to the antipsychotic drugs. And the one drug that is now approved for treatment of agitation and Alzheimer's disease does fall into that antipsychotic category, along with its various black box warnings - and that's brexpiprazole. For many of our patients, getting coverage for that agent is difficult. It's not on many formularies. So, it is something I progress toward rather than start with. Similarly, for sleep, there is one approved agent for sleep, that's a dual orexin agonist. And it shows effectiveness, but can have some negative cognitive effects, and so I tend not to start with that either. My first choice when sleep is the primary issue for our patients with dementia is trazodone, and there are some small, limited studies for it's off-label used to enhance sleep. It's safe, inexpensive, often effective, and therefore it's my first choice. Dr Monteith: So, now let's get into the big conversations that everyone is having. Let's talk about the newer disease modifying anti amyloid therapies. Give us a summary dating back 2021 probably, although we can hold the preclinical work, but let's talk about what is available to our patients. Dr Geldmacher: Sure. And the development of anti-amyloid therapies goes all the way back to 1999. So, it's a pretty long course to get us to where we are today.  Dr Monteith: Yeah, that's why we limited that.  Dr Geldmacher: With that first approved agent with aducanumab in 2021, it received a limited or accelerated approval in FDA parlance. These agents, the aducanumab, lecanemab and donanemab, all approved, are known to remove amyloid pathology from the brain as measured by CSF and/or BIPET. They are amyloid lowering therapies, often called disease-modifying therapies. And across the agents there's some variable results. But if we look at the two with full approval, lecanemab and donanemab, they slow clinical progression by 25% to 35% on average. And that's measured by either cognitive measures or global measures or composite measures, but it's pretty consistent in that range of about one-third slowing. That makes it really difficult to discern in an individual patient, though, because there's so much variability in the progression of the disease already that it can be difficult to tell in one person that these drugs are working. They're also complex to use, so there's a qualification process that involves MRI to exclude things like a high tendency toward hemorrhage. It includes genetic testing for papal E4 status to help us understand the risk for complication, and then once-monthly or twice-monthly infusions with standardized schedule for MRI scanning. So, there's a lot that goes into managing these agents. And they are expensive, and we don't yet know their cost effectiveness. The cost effectiveness of the cholinesterase inhibitors was questioned when they first came out back in the 1990s, and it took five or ten years to really understand that they provided benefit to society and to individuals in those domains of quality of life and return on investment. And we're still learning about that with the disease modifying therapies.  Dr Monteith: So, two questions. One, the case that you presented was an individual having symptoms and kind of voiced their desire to be on these therapies. So, people are going to be asking, coming to clinic asking and then of course, they're going to be people that you select out. So, how do you make that decision to recommend this treatment for patients given the potential risk? Dr Geldmacher: We've got some really good guidance from appropriate use recommendation papers for aducanumab and lecanemab, and I'm expecting one from donanemab fairly soon. But the key is to identify individualized risks, and that involves knowing their APOE4 status, knowing their- whether they've had microhemorrhages in the brain previously, and then documenting that they really do have amyloid pathology with something like PET scan to establish those baselines. I talk to people about the burden of twice-monthly infusions or, now with donanemab, once-monthly infusions. And for instance, for someone who's got a working caregiver, getting to an infusion center twice a month can be a significant burden. And then if there are complications, frequent MRI scans and so forth. So, we talk about the burden of entering into this therapeutic pathway. The reality is that people who are qualified generally want it. I have relatively few folks who have said, no, these risks are more than I'm willing to accept. For decades my patients have said, anything you can do to slow this down, I'm willing to try. And now we're seeing that translated to reality with people willing to accept high-risk, high-cost treatments with the chance of slowing their individual progression.  Dr Monteith: And how do you select between the two treatments? Dr Geldmacher: So far that's been easy because donanemab's not readily available.  Dr Monteith: Outside of clinical trials, right?  Dr Geldmacher: Exactly. For prescription use, it's coming in - the first cases have now been infused - but it's not generally available. Nonetheless, what I will do for patients in this is look at the risk tables. So donanemab appears to have in general some higher rates of the Aria complications, amyloid-related imaging anomalies, and some people are going to be more risk tolerant of that for the payoff of potentially faster response. The donanemab trials restructured that. They did their first assessment of effectiveness. I had amyloid removal at six months and a significant proportion of people were eligible to discontinue treatment at six months because their amyloid was below treatable thresholds. So higher risk, perhaps faster action and fewer infusions for donanemab. Lecanemab we have more direct experience with, and between the two of them, the eighteen month outcomes are pretty much the same and indistinguishable. So are we in it for a quick hit, or are we in it for the long race? And different patients and different families will have differing opinions on where they want to accept that risk and burden and so forth. But so far, the data don't indicate a lot of difference in their longer-term outcomes. We still have plenty to learn.  Dr Monteith: And so, it sounds like, as you mentioned, we're looking at eighteen months out for kind of a hard outcome, and that there is a lot of variability in response rate. How are you tracking patients- you know about the imaging, so just in terms of clinical outcomes and efficacy?  Dr Geldmacher: Sure. So, for Medicare to reimburse on these treatments, people need to be enrolled in a registry program - and there are several of these, CMS runs one of their own. But the requirement for that is, every six months, to do cognitive and functional outcomes through the first two years. Cognitive outcomes are up to the clinician, but things like the mini mental state exam, the MoCA, are appropriate. In our own program, we use something we developed locally called the Alabama Brief Cognitive Screener. As for the cognitive outcomes and then for functional, we use an instrument called the General Activities of Daily Living Scale, but there are many other ADL scales that could be used as well. CMS does not mandate specific tests. Since the progression of the disease is variable to begin with, we don't really know how to interpret these results in reference to whether the drug is working, but I can tell a patient or a family member, your scores are stable, or, you have a decline of three points in this test. That's typical for this duration of illness. But there isn't a good way to know whether the drug is working in this person at this time, at least with our current levels of data.  Dr Monteith: So, I think we have to talk about health equity, and it sounds like Medicare is reimbursing for some of us. We look at different socioeconomic backgrounds, educational backgrounds, race, ethnicity. Not everyone is aware of these treatments. So, how do we get more patients to become aware of these treatments? And how do we get them to more people to help people? Dr Geldmacher: Yeah, I mean, that's- it's a major, major issue of inequity in our population. We've done some work at UAB looking at the flow of members of minority communities into memory clinics. So, we know that the overall population of, and I'll choose, for an example, blacks and African Americans, that they are represented a much higher rate in our overall UAB treatment population than they are in our memory clinic population. So, they're not even getting to us in the specialty clinic at the same rates as other segments of our population. We also know that blacks and African Americans in our population are not receiving PET scans as often as the overall treatment population. So yes, there are real, real problems with access. There are cultural issues behind this as well. And in many communities, a change in cognition, a loss of memory is an expected part of the aging process rather than recognized as a disease. So, people who come to us from minority communities are often further along in the course of cognitive and functional decline and beyond the point where they might qualify for the disease-modifying therapies, where early AD is the sort of defining boundary. So, I think more awareness and more screening in primary care settings, perhaps more community outreach to let people know that changes in memory that affect daily function are not normal as part of the aging process and should be evaluated for intervention. So, there's lots of places in our healthcare community where we could foster better outreach, better knowledge to get more folks access to the medicines. And this is before we even get to cost. Dr Monteith: Yeah, yeah. And obviously, there's some stigma as well.  Dr Geldmacher: That's right.  Dr Monteith: Really recognizing what the issues are and diving and asking those questions and funding research that asks those questions, as you mentioned, is really important. And then you have also a nice area where, you know, looking on the impact of treatments on caregiver-related outcomes, and of course ultimately want to keep patients out of nursing homes and prevent death. And so, can you talk a little bit about that? And, you know, mainly the caregiver burden.  Dr Geldmacher: So, my research in that area goes back a long way now. But I learned early in the course of therapy that many times the outcome that the family is noticing for symptomatic therapies is not a change in the patient's memory per se, but that there is less work involved in the caregiving. Less time is spent in direct caregiving roles. The patient may shadow less and because they have better independent cognition. I remember one family member once told me, the medicine you started is a godsend because now I can go to the bathroom by myself and he's not pounding on the door saying where are you, where are you. He's able to recall long enough that I'm in the bathroom that I have that moment of privacy. That was very meaningful to me to hear that. So. Dr Monteith: Cool. So why don't you just help us wrap this up and just give us, like, three main takeaway points that we should be getting out of your article? Dr Geldmacher: The three points that I would emphasize from my article is that the symptomatic therapies provide meaningful benefits and measurable, consistent, meaningful benefits. The second is that those benefits extend beyond things like cognitive test scores and into things like caregiver well-being and maintenance of independence in the home environment. And the third is that the disease-modifying therapies are an exciting opportunity to modify the pathology, but we still are learning about their cost effectiveness and their long-term benefit both to individuals and to society. But the only way we're going to learn that is by using them. And that was the experience that we gained from the symptomatic therapies that took use in the community for years before we really began to understand their true value. Dr Monteith: Thank you. That was excellent. And I put you on the spot, too.  Dr Geldmacher: No problem.  Dr Monteith: Again, today I've been interviewing Dr David Geldmacher, whose article on treatment of Alzheimer's disease appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on Dementia. Be sure to check out Continuum audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use this link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at contentpub.com/AudioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Orofacial pain comprises many disorders with different etiologies and pathophysiologies. A multidisciplinary approach combining medication, physical therapy, and procedural and psychological strategies is essential in treating patients with orofacial pain. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Meredith Barad, MD; Marcela Romero-Reyes, DDS, PhD, authors of the article “Orofacial Pain,” in the Continuum® October 2024 Pain Management in Neurology issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Barad is a clinical associate professor of anesthesiology, perioperative and pain medicine, and neurology and neurological sciences and codirector of the Stanford Facial Pain Program at Stanford Medicine in Stanford, California. Dr. Romero-Reyes is a clinical professor and director of the Brotman Facial Pain Clinic and Department of Neural and Pain Sciences at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Orofacial Pain Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Guest: @meredith_barad facebook.com/continuumcme Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, which features conversations with Continuum 's guest editors and authors who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum Journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article and have access to exclusive interviews not featured on the podcast. Please visit the link in the episode notes for more information on the article, subscribing to the journal, and how to get CME. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. Today I'm interviewing Drs Meredith Barad and Marcela Romero-Reyes about their article on oralfacial pain, which appears in the October 2024 Continuum issue on pain management and neurology. Welcome to the podcast, ladies. How are you?  Dr Barad: Excellent.  Dr Romero-Reyes: Fine, happy to be here.  Dr Monteith: I am so happy to see you. I mean, I think both of you I've known for like ten years. Dr Romero-Reyes: Yeah.  Dr Barad: Yes.  Dr Monteith: So why don't you introduce yourselves? While I know you, our audience, some of them, may not know you.  Dr Romero-Reyes: I'm Dr Marcella Romero Reyes. I am a neuropathial pain specialist, clinical professor, and director of the Provident Special Pain Clinic here in the University of Maryland School of Dentist. Dr Monteith: Excellent.  Dr Barad: My name is Meredith Barad. I'm a clinical associate professor at Stanford and I work- I'm the codirector of our headache and facial pain clinic in the Stanford pain management clinic. Dr Monteith: Well, first of all, thank you for writing this article. It is extremely detailed and up-to-date and very informative. And in neurology, I think we don't get enough pain management. I'm interested in both of your backgrounds and, you know, what led you even to become an expert in this area? And both of you have complementary areas. I think we can see in the quality of this article. But why don't we start with you, Dr Romero-Reyes? Dr Romero-Reyes: Well, for me to get interested in orofacial pain, I will say more than an interest was like a calling that I wanted to take care of this patient population. So, as you know, my background is dentistry and at that time I was very interested in patients with complex medical issues. And was the time I was- I started to be interested in temporomandibular disorders. But what really picked completely my attention was the first time I saw a patient with trigeminal neuralgia. This was my last year in dental school. This patient already had, like, almost a full upper quadrant of teeth extracted where pain was not resolved. So when the patient came to us and I did my exam and, you know, and I triggered the pain, the sharp shoot electrical pain, that really broke my heart. And I took an x-ray and I didn't find anything that will explain it was something wrong until I talked to my professor and he said, no, this is medical. There's nothing wrong with it, with that tooth and needs to be, you know, followed with proper management and medication. And for me, that was like, wow, what a proper diagnosis and proper management can take care of these of these patients. And when the patient got better, that really said, oh, you know, I want to do this.  Dr Monteith: That's a crazy story. It's always that last patient of the day.  Dr Romero-Reyes: And you know, think about it, at least in dentistry at that time, I learned about trigeminal neuralgia from a book, right, my classes. But when you see the patient, this is it. That completely, you know, made me say yes, I want to study this.  Dr Monteith: Yeah. And unfortunately, that's not an uncommon scenario where patients with trigeminal neuralgia get, you know, their extractions and pain can sometimes be more complicated. What about you, Dr Barad? Dr Barad: Well, I guess I'm sort of like the opposite. So as a neurologist and a trained pain physician, I saw a lot of patients with neuralgic pain and headache pain, but I also saw many patients who would say, I have TMJ. And as, as Dr Romero has educated us, that's like saying I have shoulder or I have knee. But I quickly realized that I needed to work with a multidisciplinary team to really understand more about orofacial pain. It's not just neuralgic. There are other ideologies. And so that's how we started working together and that's how we practice in our clinic at Stanford. Dr Monteith: So, why don't you tell us about the objectives of this article? Dr Barad: I think our objectives were to help the neurologist broaden the differential diagnosis on facial pain to encompass below the nose, the oral cavity, the temporal mandibular joint. And to just think more broadly about facial pain and to understand some of the more recent diagnostic criteria that have been developed for facial pain and to- how to diagnose properly and how to begin treatment for some of the other conditions that are non-neurologic.  Dr Romero-Reyes: And I think I will ask about what Dr Barad say that also to bring awareness to the neurologist about the vast classification of oral facial pain disorder, craniofacial and orofacial. I think that was also a key thing too. And also, to show how well we can work together, you know, the multi-disciplinary management that is indicated for these cases. Dr Monteith: Cool. And you mentioned some of the new diagnostic criteria. I want to talk just briefly about the new international classification of orofacial pain, ICOP. When did that come out and what was the process there in really fine-tuning the diagnosis of orofacial pain disorders? Dr Romero-Reyes: So, in 2019 the orofacial head pain especially interest group of the International Association for the Study of Pain, the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders methodology and the American Academy of Orofacial Pain and the International Headache Society. They partnered together to develop to develop this international classification of orofacial pain. And these, I think- it's such a great effort, you know, all the main people doing pain about this area, and goes very well together with the international classification of headache disorders. So, for example, you know, some disorders that International Classification of Headache Disorders doesn't present such as and the ICOP, International Classification of Orofacial Pain, presents, like the persistent idiopathic dental Viola pain. You have it in the ICOP. It's not, you know, mentioned in the in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, as well as, also we have the- I think it's item number five, the orofacial representations headache disorder or primary headache disorder. The ICOP gives you a nice, clean diagnostic criteria.  Dr Monteith: So, I guess I would ask Dr Barad with this classification in mind, how useful is it in neurology practice? And I know obviously you see patients with pain, but how useful even in managing patients with headache? Dr Barad: I think it's great because I've had a lot of dentists and ENT doctors who have started referring patients to me because they've realized that they've increased their awareness about orofacial pain and realized that pain in the sinuses, for example, accompanied by light sensitivity and sound sensitivity and rhinorrhea, may not be a recurrent monthly sinus infection. And so that kind of broadens our awareness of these of these disorders. And it's been, it's brought new patients into my clinic that we can help and treat. So that's been exciting.  Dr Monteith: And what about in the world of dentistry? Obviously, I think people in orofacial pain worlds are highly attuned to this, but I would hope this would hopefully have been disseminated into dentists and regular practice at C patients with trigeminal neuralgia. Dr Romero-Reyes: Going back for the, what you were discussing about the ICOP. So, it's what we're trying now as a new specialty. Well that we have been for the last four years, but finally in 2020 we have been recognized by the American Mental Association to disseminate this knowledge. But also, you know, can you imagine in in the realm in orofacial pain or dentistry have a patient with this recurrent pain, phonophobia, photophobia, throbbing dental pain is throbbing, but it's nothing wrong with your tooth. And that did they tell you that actually you have an orofacial or facial migraine or a neurovascular or facial pain. How crazy, right? And that is managed with migraines therapy. So it really, you know, to make you think like that. Wow, so these weird tooth things that used to come every week or these with facial pain, it's nothing to deal with, you know, with my teeth or any structure, you know, inside my mouth. Dr Barad: It sounds to me like what you're saying is that we've, this has encouraged patient education as well, not only interdisciplinary education, but really helping provide an explanation for the patient about what is going on with them. So rather than just getting sent away to another tertiary specialist, the patient is getting a more robust understanding of what's going on.  Dr Romero-Reyes: And going back to what you were saying about trigeminal neuralgia, you know, at least in dentistry also we're teaching now a new awareness like for two things, right? What about from the neurology setting? The patient has captured electrical pain. The trigger is intraoral. If it's pain inside your mouth, the first practitioner you're going to see who will be maybe the dentist that the dentist knows that could be a possibility of a disorder that doesn't deal with teeth, but also, it's important and we discussed that in our paper. What about that actually that weird trigger actually, it's not a general. What about if it's a cracked tooth has that singing sensation too. So, you see, it's two ways; one, to teach dentist to learn about this disorder and you know, we have learned, but you know, it's much more awareness now that this is great that, you know, these disorders you're not going to treat with dental procedures. Right? It's medical and vice versa, that the neurologist also has the awareness that oh, central trigger. Have you gone to the to the dentist? Have you checked that out? Dr Monteith: So what should neurologist know about dental sources of pain? Dr Barad: Well, maybe they should read the paper?  Dr Romero-Reyes: Yeah. Yeah, you need to read the paper. Yeah.  Dr Monteith: Top three, don't treat this with gabapentin.  Dr Romero-Reyes: Like well, dental pain is not going to be resolved with gabapentin. That would need to make a diagnosis if and you know it's that examination that come comes with a radiographic evidence that shows that maybe could be a cavity or could be a problem. You know in the in the practical tissues of the tooth that is given a symptomatology. Not only dental could be a lot of different disorders inside there now that can produce pain that also the readers can check our paper and learn about and see the wonderful interesting pictures that we have added there. Dr Monteith: Yeah. And so why don't we talk a little bit about TMD disorders and what is the new thinking around these conditions? Dr Romero-Reyes: Well, I will say for the last decade, maybe a little bit more has been a change in the evidence. They evidence based understanding of the theologia pathophysiologist and for mandibular disorders. Imagine that what's the shift in the in the paradigm that in dentistry prevails for a long, long time. That is that really focus and I will call it the pathological mechanistic point of view. What I mean by that I was focusing your bite, your occlusion, how the relation between in your maxilla mandible. That was the only issues that would create in temporomandibular disorders. So now we know that temporomandibular disorders are complex, are multifactorial and you need to understand them and see them within a biopsychosocial framework. And this dictate the main way to management for the primary way that we start will be conservative, reversible and basing evidence that the best evidence available that we have. Dr Monteith: And what about for trigeminal neuralgia? Is there newer kind of classification around trigeminal neuralgia? and what are some key points that we should consider when diagnosing these patients and treating these patients, Dr Barad?  Dr Barad: There haven't been any new diagnostic criteria, but I would say that there's been an increased awareness that classical trigeminal neuralgia is more likely than not related to neurovascular compression or we should say, maybe I should say neurovascular contact or compression. There is a developing grading system of that. That's an evolution as we speak. I think it's an exciting time for facial neuralgia because it's opened the door for us to look at other neuralgia also as vascular compressions and to think about how we can treat them with decompression or possibly with peripheral nerve stimulation or medicine or Botox. Or who knows what's the future is going to hold? But it is I think a change in the way we are thinking about the definition of neuralgia of, of trigeminal neuralgia in that is caused by a compression which is different than other neuralgia in other parts of the body. I should, I just want to classify there's about maybe ten twelve percent of people who present with classical trigeminal neuralgia who there is not evidence on imaging of a vascular contact or compression. But the majority of cases do seem to have some somewhere in the spectrum from contact to compression.  Dr Monteith: Even contact I find to be a bit vague sometimes say, well, thanks for letting me know that they're touching. But and then some of the neurosurgeons have different perspective when you open the patient up. So, I didn't know about the grading.  Dr Barad: Yeah, I think you've hit on it exactly like that is a big problem in the field right now. How do we understand what patients will be the best patients for surgery? And it used to be that you have the classical trigeminal neurologist symptomology plus some imaging that shows something versus nothing. And now we're getting into parsing out the imaging and trying to understand who's the best candidate for that with the imaging.  Dr Monteith: Dr Romero, anything to add?  Dr Romero-Reyes: No, that I agree about that, you know, and I think now maybe for the patients that I have seen with that, because under partial pain settings, sometimes we're the ones that, oh, actually what you have is trigeminal neuralgia idea, you know, so we start to have our small disciplinary management, but you know, when they come out, I already have an MRI doctor, but, and they say that these are compression, but what degree? And some patients that they don't have symptoms can have a compression. And I'm thinking maybe right that later on when we have more time and maybe nicer imaging, we're going to really find out or if it's the development angle is the measurement has some other characteristics, who knows. So, I think for trigeminal neuralgia, the things is still evolving, right? For our understanding. I have to help us to make a more- I will not say definitive diagnosis, but maybe some parameters will change in the future. Dr Monteith: So now we have a lot of people listening, international folks listening, and they always want some treatment, a tip, some clinical tips. So, can you give us a little bit of clinical insight to how to treat patients with trigeminal neuralgia and when you're seeing patients for second and third opinions, what might you see that may explain why their pain is not well controlled? We all get into interdisciplinary care, but in terms of pharmacology? Dr Barad: I think people are a little reluctant to use some of these medications that neuromodulating medications because, in general, it's an older population and they're rightly worried about falls and dizziness and confusion and low sodium. And so, I think they hesitate to go to the doses that are needed to help with pain control. So, a lot of our, my initial management is gingerly and gently titrating that to try to get to see if we can get control of the pain. Dr Monteith: Dr Romero?  Dr Romero-Reyes: I could add, for example, one thing that I in the realm of facial pain addition to pharmacology. Let's say that we have a patient with that intraoral trigger and we were able to localize that intraoral trigger. Sometimes we can even also use topical medication. And in the topical medication we can use, for example, an anticonvulsant, let's say gabapentin, oxcarbazepine for example, to add in the cream. And we use, we call it a neurosensory stent in my looks like a Nygard, but it's not a Nygard that can cover that area. So, the patient can add that cream very delimited in that area. And that helps, you know, can help with the pain sometimes. What we can find is that, at least in my, in my experience, and that when we add a topical, maybe we don't need to increase as much. The systemic medication, of course, depends from case to case.  Dr Monteith: So those are two great tips. Not being afraid to push those doses up in a safe manner and maybe with monitoring as well as of maybe utilizing more topicals. And I think we could probably hear a lot more from you on topicals at some other point. But thank you also for the table. I think it's, it's really nice the way all the treatments are laid out. So what other cranial neuralgia advances have there been? Dr Barad: I would say the main advancements have been in applying the knowledge that neurosurgeons have learned from microvascular decompression of the trigeminal nerve, to the glossopharyngeal nerve, to the geniculate nerve, and really trying to optimize imaging and optimize neurosurgical techniques to try to treat these neuralgias. If the patient has failed medicine, if the patient is a good candidate for surgery and if the patient desires that. Dr Monteith: Great. So now let's talk about multidisciplinary approaches. I know both of you are big fans of that, and you may do things a little bit differently at your institution, especially with your background. So maybe Dr Romero, do you want to tell us about your experience? And then we'll have Dr Brad. Dr Romero-Reyes: But in my experience from study management, let's say depend, of course, also the started we're talking about. But let's say for example about temporomandibular disorders, you know that for TMD is one of these overlapping pain conditions and we know that TMD is common with primary headache disorders, especially migraine. So, if we're able to utilize, you know, the expertise of neurologist specializing headache. With me, for example, or a facial pain person that is that is helping you manage a patient with this comorbidity. This is super effective because we know the presence of TMD in a migraineur can help the disorder to, to progress some more chronic form. So, you see, this is super important and effective to provide, you know, optimal care for the patient. For example, in the patients that I do see with neuralgias, like in addition to trigeminal neuralgia, let's say nervous intermediates neuralgia, that sometimes they can come to me like, oh, the pain is in my ear and my EMT or, or I think maybe it's my TMJ and for the pain is charged shooting inside the ear doesn't follow the for the diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders. And I can maybe help the patient to get a proper imaging or already penalize it with a neurologist to make sure. And maybe at least my way will be maybe I'm the one that can catch those disorders and help, you know, the patient to go for the next step. Dr Barad: I think Marcella, Dr Romero-Reyes, hit on a nice point that maybe this group is not as familiar with and that is that temporal mandibular dysfunction TMD is a, is one of the disorders that we call chronic overlapping pain conditions or COCPs. And those include headache. it's not, it's not specified fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic pelvic pain and several other chronic pain syndromes. And they suggest a central sensitization to one's pain. And the way that we treat centrally sensitized pain is not just through medications, it's in a biopsychosocial framework because we see much higher rates of depression and anxiety in this group. And so, using a pain psychologist to help the patient develop coping strategies to help them manage their pain, using a physical therapist to help them learn this, the stretching exercises and using medications to help with not only with their pain syndrome, but also sometimes with their psych comorbidities. And then additionally, procedures sometimes play a role in the process to help usually turn down the pain. Interestingly, when we look at trigeminal neuralgia, we see much less overlapping pain disorders. It's much rarer to see somebody with TN who has other COCPs or the kind of chronic levels of depression and anxiety that we see in these patients. So, the approach is very different, and I think it requires the use of a multidisciplinary team to help guide the treatment pathways for these patients. Dr Monteith: Today, I've been interviewing Drs Meredith Barad and Marcelo Romero-Reyes, whose article on orofacial pain appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on pain management and neurology. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, associate editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practitioners. Use this link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at continpub.com/AudioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

In this episode of Leupold's Hunt Talk Radio, Randy talks mule deer, research, and migrations with Dr. Kevin Monteith from the University of Wyoming. In addition to some pronghorn and other points, topics covered include habitat being primary importance, fidelity to a core area, migrators learn from mom, fat does mean healthy fawns, mule deer as specialists, migration distance changes peak rut dates, mule deer not as adaptable as elk, elk do impact mule deer, pronghorn management to have our cake and eat it too, and many other fascinating topics coming from the Monteith Shop at U of W. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many autoimmune neuromuscular disorders are reversible with prompt diagnosis and early treatment. Understanding the potential utility and limitations of antibody testing in each clinical setting is critical for practicing neurologists. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN speaks with Divyanshu Dubey, MD, FAAN, author of the article “Autoimmune Neuromuscular Disorders Associated With Neural Antibodies,” in the Continuum® August 2024 Autoimmune Neurology issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Dubey is an associate professor in the departments of neurology and laboratory medicine and pathology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Additional Resources Read the article: Autoimmune Neuromuscular Disorders Associated With Neural Antibodies Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Guest: @Div_Dubey Transcript Full episode transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, which features conversations with Continuum's guest editors and authors who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article and have access to exclusive interviews not featured on the podcast. Please visit the link in the episode notes for more information on the article, subscribing to the journal, and how to get CME.   Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Divyanshu Dubey about his article on autoimmune neuromuscular disorders associated with neural autoantibodies, which is part of the August 2024 Continuum issue on autoimmune neurology. Welcome to the podcast. How are you?   Dr Dubey: Hi, Dr Monteith. Thank you for inviting me to be a part of this podcast. I'm doing well.   Dr Monteith: Well, why don't you introduce yourself to the audience? And, call me Tesha.   Dr Dubey: I'm Divyanshu Dubey (please, call me Div). I'm one of the autoimmune neurology consultants here at Mayo Clinic Rochester. I'm an Associate Professor of neurology, as well as lab medicine and pathology. My responsibilities here are split - partly seeing patients (primarily patients with autoimmune disorders, including neuromuscular disorders), and then 50% of my time (or, actually, more than 50%), I spend in the lab, either doing research on these autoimmune disorders or reporting antibodies in a clinical setting for various antibody panels which Mayo's neuroimmunology lab offers.   Dr Monteith: That's a nice overlap of subspecialty area. How did you get into this work?   Dr Dubey: I think a lot of it was, sort of, by chance. Meeting the right people at the right time was the main, sort of, motivation for me. Initially, I trained in India for my medical school and didn't really got much exposed to autoimmune neurology in India. I think our primary concern in my training was sort of treating TB meningitis and cerebral malaria - that was my exposure to neurology, including stroke and some epilepsy cases. As a part of application for USMLEs and coming here to residency, I did some externships, and one of the externships was at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and that's when I worked a few weeks with Dr Posner and got introduced to the idea of paraneoplastic neurological syndrome working with him. And that sort of started - I wouldn't call it vicious cycle - but my interest in the area of autoimmune neurology and paraneoplastic neurological disorders, which subsequently was refined further through residency and fellowships.   Dr Monteith: That's interesting. I actually rotated through - I did a externship also at Sloan Kettering, and I had a clinic with Dr Posner. And I thought, at the time, he was such a rock star, and, like, I took a picture with him, and I think he thought it was insane. And I didn't go into autoimmune neurology. So, you know, interesting pathways, right?   Dr Dubey: Yes. And I think he's inspired many, many people, and sort of trained a lot of them as well.   Dr Monteith: So, why don't you tell us what you set out to do when writing this article?   Dr Dubey: So, I think, given my background and training in various subspecialties in neurology, I was, sort of, formally did fellowships in autoimmune neurology, as well as neuromuscular medicine. One of the areas in these areas that I focus on is in my clinical practice, as well as in my sort of lab work, is autoimmune muscular disorders - and that to, specifically, autoantibodies and their clinical utility for autoimmune muscular disorders. So, that's what I wanted to focus on in an article. When I was invited to write an article on autoimmune muscular conditions in general, I thought it was very difficult to pack it all in one chapter or one article, so I narrowed my focus (or tilted my focus) towards antibody-positive disorders and trying to understand how we as neurologists can firstly sort of identify these conditions (which may end up being antibody-positive) – and then, on the other hand, once we get these antibody results, how we can find the utility in them or find them useful in taking care of our patients. At the same time, I also wanted to kind of highlight that these antibodies are not perfect, they do have certain limitations – so, that's another thing I sort of highlighted in the article.   Dr Monteith: So, why don't we just start with a very broad question - what do you believe the role of autoantibodies is in the workup of neuropathies and then neuromuscular disorders? Obviously, when we think of myasthenia gravis, but there are some presentations that you may not necessarily think to first order autoantibody tests. So, what is the role, and where does it fit in the paradigm?   Dr Dubey: I think it's extremely crucial, and it's evolving as time goes on, and it's becoming more and more clinically relevant. Let's say three, four decades ago, the number of biomarkers which were available were very limited and only a handful - and there has been a significant increase in these biomarkers with growing utilization of newer techniques for discovery of antibodies, and more and more people jumping into this field trying to not only discover, but try and understand and validate these biomarkers (what they truly, clinically mean). These antibodies, like you pointed out, ones for myasthenia (such as acetylcholine receptor-binding antibodies, or MuSK antibodies), they can be extremely helpful in clinical diagnosis of these patients. We all know the importance of EMG in managing our patients with neuromuscular disorders. But, oftentimes, EMG nerve conduction studies are often not available at every center. In those scenarios, if you have antibodies with very high clinical specificity, and you're seeing a patient on examination whom you're seeing ptosis (fatigable ptosis), double vision, you're suspecting myasthenia, you send antibodies, and they come back positive. It brings you closer to the answer that may, in turn, require you to refer to a patient to a place where you can get high-quality EMGs or high-quality care. In addition to getting to the diagnosis, it also, sometimes, leads you in directions to search for what is the trigger. A good example is all these paraneoplastic neurological syndromes (which we started our conversation with), where once you find a biomarker (such as anti-Hu antibodies or CRMP5 antibodies) in a patient with paraneoplastic neuropathies, it can direct the search for cancer. These are the patients where, specifically, these two antibodies, small-cell lung cancer is an important cancer to rule out - they require CT scans, and if those are negative, consider doing PET scan – so, we can remove the inciting factor in these cases. And then, lastly, it can guide treatment. Depending upon subtypes of antibodies or particular antibodies, it can give us some idea what is going to be the most effective treatment for these patients.   Dr Monteith: I think paraneoplastic syndromes are a very good example of how autoantibodies can help guide treatment. But, what other examples can you provide for us?   Dr Dubey: Yeah, so I think one of the relatively recent antibody tests which our lab started offering is biomarkers of autoimmune neuropathies - these are neurofascin and contactin, and those are great examples which can target or guide your treatment. I personally, in the past, have had many CIDP patients before we were offering these testings, where we used to kind of start these patients on IVIG. They had the typical electrodiagnostic features, which would qualify them for CIDP. They did not show any response. In many of these cases, we tried to do sort of clinical testing or sort of research-based testing for neurofascin and contactin back in the day, but we didn't have this resource where we can sort of send the blood, hopefully, and within a week, get an answer, whether these patients have autoimmune neuropathy or not. Having this resource now, in some of these cases, even before starting them on IVIG, knowing that test result can guide treatments, such as considering plasma exchange up front as a first-line therapy, followed by rituximab or B-cell depleting therapies, which have been shown to be extremely beneficial in these conditions. And it is not just limited to neurofascin or contactin (which are predominantly IgG4-mediated condition), but the same concept applies to other IgG4-mediated diseases, such as MuSK myasthenia, where having an antibody result can guide your treatment towards B-cell depleting therapies instead of sort of trying the typical regimen that you try for other myasthenia gravis patients.   Dr Monteith: And you mentioned where I was reading that, sometimes, nerve conduction studies and EMG can be useful to then narrow the autoantibody profiles. Oftentimes, in the inpatient service, we order the autoantibodies much faster, because it's sometimes harder to access EMG nerve conduction studies - but talk about that narrowing process.   Dr Dubey: Yeah. And it goes back to the point you just made where we end up sending, sort of, sometimes (and I'm guilty of this as well), where we just send antibodies incessantly, even knowing that this particular patient is not necessarily likely to be an autoimmune neurological disorder, and that can be a challenge, even if the false-positive rate for a particular test is, let's say 1% - if you send enough panels, you will get that false-positive result for a particular patient. And that can have significant effects on the patient - not only unnecessary testing or imaging (depending on what type of antibody it is), but also exposure to various immunotherapies or immunosuppressive therapies. It's important to recognize red flags – and that's one of the things I've focused on in this article, is talking about clinical, as well as electrodiagnostic, factors, which make us think that this might be an autoimmune condition, and then, subsequently, we should consider autoantibody testing. Otherwise, we can be in a situation - that 1% situation - where we may be sort of dealing with a false-positive result, rather than a true-positive result. In terms of EMGs, I think I find them extremely useful, specifically for neuropathies, distinguishing between demyelinating versus exonal, and then catering our antibody-ordering practices toward specific groups of antibodies which are associated with demyelinating neuropathies (if that's what the electrophysiology showed) versus if it's an exonal pathology (considering a different subset of antibodies) - and that's going to be extremely important.   Dr Monteith: You're already getting to my next question, which is what are some of the limitations of autoantibody testing? You mentioned the false-positivity rate - what other limitations are there?   Dr Dubey: So, I think the limitations are both for seropositive, as well as seronegative, patients. As a neurologist, when we see patients and send panels, we can be in a challenging situation in both of those scenarios. Firstly, thinking about seropositives - despite the growing literature about neurology and antibodies, we have to be aware, at least to some extent, about what methodologies are being utilized for these antibody tests. And what I mean by that is knowing when you're sending a sample to a particular lab, the methodology that they're utilizing - is that the most sensitive, specific way to test for certain antibodies? We've learned about this through some of the literature published regarding MOG and aquaporin-4, which has demonstrated that these antibodies, which we suspect are cell surface antibodies, not only generate false-positive, but also false-negative results if they are tested by Western blots or ELISAs. Similar can be applied to some of the cell surface antibodies we are investigating on the autoimmune neuromuscular side (we have some sort of unpublished data regarding that for neurofascin-155). Secondly, it's also kind of critical when you're getting these reports to kind of have a look at what type of secondary antibodies are being utilized, an example being we talked about neurofascin-155, and I mentioned these are IgG4-predominant diseases, so testing for neurofascin IgG4 and knowing that particular patient is positive IgG4 rather than neurofascin pan-IgG. That's an important discrimination, and important information for you to know, because we have seen, at least in my clinical practice, that patients who are positive for neurofascin IgG4 follow the typical story of autoimmune neuropathies - the ones who are not (who are just neurofascin-155 IgG-positive), oftentimes can have wide-ranging phenotypes. The same applies to neurofascin-155 IgMs. And then (not for all antibodies, but for some antibodies), titers are important. A good example of that is a3 ganglionic receptor antibodies, which we utilize for when we're taking care of patients who have autoimmune dysautonomia - and in these cases, if the titers of the antibodies are below .2 nmol/L, usually, those don't have a high specificity for AAG diagnosis. So, I get referred a lot of patients with very low titers of a3 ganglionic receptor antibodies, where the clinical picture does not at all look like autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy. So, that's another thing to potentially keep in mind. And then, on the seronegative front, it's important to recognize that we are still sort of seeing the tip of the iceberg as far as these antibodies or biomarkers are concerned, specifically for certain phenotypes, such as CIDP. If you look at the literature, depending upon what demographics we're looking at or sort of racial profiles we're looking at, the frequency of these autoimmune neuropathy biomarkers range from 5% to 20%, with much higher frequency in Asian patients - so, a good chunk of these diseases are still seronegative. In the scenario where you have a very high suspicion for an autoimmune neuromuscular disorder (specifically, we'll talk about neuropathies, because that's why we utilize tissue immunofluorescence staining on neural tissues), I recommend people to potentially touch base with that tertiary care lab or that referral lab to see if they have come across some research-based antibodies which are not clinically validated, which can give you some idea, some additional supportive idea, that what you're dealing with is an autoimmune neuromuscular disorder. So, we have to keep the limitations of some of these antibody panels and antibody tests in mind for both positive, as well as negative, results.   Dr Monteith: So, you've already given us a lot of good stuff, um, about titer seronegativity and false-positive rates. And, you know, also looking at the clinical picture when ordering these tests, utilizing EMG nerve conduction studies, give us a major key point that we can't not get when reading your article.   Dr Dubey: I think the major key point is we are neurologists first and serologists later. Most of these patients, we have to kind of evaluate them clinically and convince ourselves at least partly that this might be an autoimmune neuromuscular disorder before sending off these panels. Also, I find it useful to narrow down the phenotype, let's say, in a particular neuropathy or a muscle disease or a hyperexcitability syndrome. So, I have a core group of antigens, autoantigens, or autoantibodies, which I'm expecting and making myself aware of - things beyond that will raise my antenna - potentially, is this truly relevant? Could this be potentially false-positive? So, clinical characterization up front, phenotypic characterization upfront, and then utilizing those antibody results to support our clinical decision-making and therapeutic decision-making is what I've tried to express in this article.   Dr Monteith: And what is something that you wish you knew much earlier in your career?   Dr Dubey: It's a very challenging field, and it's a rapidly evolving field where we learn many things nearly every year, and, sometimes, we learn things that were previously said were incorrect, and we need to kind of work on them. A good example of that is initial reports of voltage-gated potassium-channel antibodies. So, back in the day when I was actually in my medical school and (subsequently) in my residency, voltage-gated potassium-channel antibodies were closely associated with autoimmune neuromyotonia, or autoimmune peripheral hyperexcitability syndromes. Now, over time, we've recognized that only the patients who are positive for LGI1 or CASPR2 are the ones who truly have autoimmune neuromuscular disorders or even CNS disorders. The voltage-gated potassium-channel antibody by itself, without LGI1 or CASPR2, truly doesn't have a very high specificity for neurological autoimmunity. So, that's one example of how even things which were published were considered critical thinking or critical knowledge in our field of autoimmune neuromuscular disorders has evolved and has sort of changed over time. And, again, the new antibodies are another area where nearly every year, something new pops up - not everything truly stands a test of time, but this keeps us on our toes.   Dr Monteith: And what's something that a patient taught you?   Dr Dubey: I think one of the things with every patient interaction I recognize is being an autoimmune neurologist, we tend to focus a lot on firstly, diagnosis, and secondly, immunotherapy - but what I've realized is symptomatic and functional care beyond immunotherapy in these patients who have autoimmune neurological disorders is as important, if not more important. That includes care of patients, involving our colleagues from physical medicine and rehab in terms of exercise regimen for these patients as we do immunotherapies, potentially getting a plan for management of associated pain, and many other factors and many other symptoms that these patients have to deal with secondary to these autoimmune neurological conditions.   Dr Monteith: I think that's really well said, because we get excited about getting the diagnosis and then getting the treatment, but that long-term trajectory and quality of life is really what patients are seeking.   Dr Dubey: Yeah, and as you pointed out, most of the time, especially when we are in inpatient service, or even when we're seeing the patients upfront outpatient, we are seeing them, sometimes, in their acute phase or at their disease not there. What we also have to realize is, what are the implications of these autoimmune neurological conditions in the long term or five years down the line? And that's one of the questions patients often ask me and how this can impact them even when the active immune phase has subsided - and that's something we are actively trying to learn about.   Dr Monteith: So, tell me something you're really excited about in your field.   Dr Dubey: I think, firstly (which is pretty much the topic of my entire article), is novel antibodies and new biomarker discoveries. That's very exciting - we are actively, ourselves, involved in the space. The second thing is better mechanistic understanding of how these antibodies cause diseases, so we can not only understand diseases, we can also try and understand how to target and treat these diseases - this is being actively done for various disorders. One of the disorders which continue to remain a challenge are T-cell mediated diseases, where these antibodies are just red flags or biomarkers are not causing the disease, but it's potentially the T-cells possibly attacking the same antigen which are causing disease process, and those are often the more refractory and harder-to-treat conditions. I'm hoping that with some of the work done in other fields (such as rheumatology or endocrinology for type one diabetes), we're able to learn and apply the same in the field of autoimmune neurology and autoimmune neuromuscular medicine. And then, the final frontier is developing therapies which are antigen specific, where you have discovered that somebody has a particular antibody, and if that antibody is pathogenic, can I just deplete that antibody, not necessarily pan-depleting the immune system. And there is some translational data, there's some animal model data in that area, which I find very exciting, will be extremely helpful for many of my patients.   Dr Monteith: So, very personalized targeted therapies?   Dr Dubey: Correct. Without having all the side effects we all have to kind of take care of in our patients when we start them on, let's say, cyclophosphamide, or some of these really, really, significantly suppressive immunosuppressive medications.   Dr Monteith: Well, thank you so much. I learned a lot from reading your article to prepare for this interview, but also just from talking to you. And it's clear that you're very passionate about what you do and very knowledgeable as well, so, thank you so much.   Dr Dubey: Thank you so much. Thank you for inviting me to do this. And thank you for inviting me to contribute the article.   Dr Monteith: Today, I've been interviewing Dr Divyanshu Dubey, whose article on autoimmune neuromuscular disorders associated with neural autoantibodies appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on autoimmune neurology. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today.   Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information, important for neurology practitioners. Use this link in the episode notes to learn more and subscribe. AAN members, you can get CME for listening to this interview by completing the evaluation at Continpub.com/AudioCME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

In our first episode of The Feminist Handbook, PHD candidate Emmaline Monteith, speaks with our President, Jessie Forbes! Emmaline is a fabulous feminist researcher and young leader, who has worked and researched on behalf of the Global Insitute for Women's Leadership (GIWL), Curtin University and Raise Our Voice Australia (ROVA). Listen in to hear more about working for feminist advocacy organisations and all things gender theory education!

In this special summer 2024 episode of the Wild Things & Wild Places podcast, we are thrilled to welcome back Kevin Monteith from the Monteith Shop. Join us as we dive deep into an engaging conversation that feels like two old friends catching up, with Kevin providing valuable updates on the Monteith Shop's ongoing research and the current status of Wyoming's Mule Deer herd. Kevin Monteith, a renowned researcher, and passionate advocate for wildlife, shares insights into the latest findings from the Monteith Shop. Known for their dedication and meticulous research, the Monteith Shop has been making significant strides in understanding and supporting the Mule Deer population in Wyoming. In this episode, Kevin paints a vivid picture of the intimacy between animals, particularly Mule Deer, bringing an emotional and powerful narrative to our listeners. The Muley Fanatic Foundation has always been a proud supporter of the Monteith Shop, and this episode underscores the mutual passion for wildlife conservation that drives both organizations. Kevin's updates not only provide a comprehensive synopsis of the current state of Wyoming's Mule Deer herd but also highlight the critical role of research in ensuring the survival and thriving of this iconic species. Tune in to hear Kevin Monteith's chillingly beautiful descriptions and learn more about the incredible work being done to preserve Wyoming's Mule Deer.  For more information about the Monteith Shop and their research, visit Monteith Shop. Don't miss out on furthering the journey with Wild Things & Wild Places. Become a member of the Muley Fanatic Foundation and help make a difference. Join an organization that gets things done. Find out more here.  

Patients with severe acute brain injury often lack the capacity to make their own medical decisions, leaving surrogate decision makers responsible for life-or-death choices. Patient-centered approaches and scientific methodologies can guide clinicians' prognostications. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Susanne Muehlschlegel, MD, MPH, FNCS, FCCM, FAAN, author of the article “Prognostication in Neurocritical Care,” in the Continuum® June 2024 Neurocritical Care issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Muehlschlegel is a professor (PAR) in the departments of neurology, anesthesiology/critical care medicine and neurosurgery, division of neurosciences critical care at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Prognostication in Neurocritical Care Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Guest: @SMuehlschMD Transcript Full transcript available here Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic- based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the Journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Tesha Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. Today, I'm interviewing doctor Susanne Muehlschlegel about her article on prognostication in neurocritical care, which is part of the June 2024 Continuum issue on neurocritical care. Well, Susanne, thank you so much for coming on the podcast, and thank you for writing that beautiful article. Dr Muehlschlegel: Thank you so much for having me. Excited to be here. Dr Monteith: Why don't we start with you just introducing yourself? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah, sure. My name is Susanne Muehlschlegel. I'm a neurointensivist at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland. I have been a neurointensivist for about eighteen years or so. I worked previously at the University of Massachusetts and recently arrived here at Hopkins. Dr Monteith: Cool. So, what were you thinking about - What information did you want to convey - when you set out to write your article? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah. So, the article about neuroprognostication is really near and dear to my heart and my research focus, and I'm very passionate about that part. And as neurologist and neurointensivist, prognostication, you know, might be considered the bread and butter of what we're asked to do by families and other services, but as the article states, is that we don't usually do a great job (or physicians sometimes believe they do). But when you actually do research and look at data, it's probably not as good as we think, and there's a lot of room for improvement. And, so, the reason for this article really was to shine the light at the fact that I think we need to really make neuroprognostication a science, just like we make prediction models a science - and, so, that is the main topic of my research, as well as the article. Dr Monteith: So, we know about your interest in research in this area, but what got you into critical care to begin with? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah. It's, pretty much, a story of always being drawn to what's exciting and what others may want to avoid. So, in medical school, people were afraid of neurology and learning all the anatomy, and I just loved that and loved interacting with these patients. And then, in neurology residency, I was drawn to not just treating the brain and the spinal cord, but also the entire patient (so the lung and the heart and the interaction of all the organs). And then, naturally, I'm a little bit of an impatient person, and so I like the environment of the ICU of rapid change and always having to be on my toes. And so that's what drew me into neurocritical care. It was a very new field when I was training, and so, I was probably, you know, one of the, maybe, first- or second-generation neurointensivists. Dr Monteith: And it sounds like you're maybe okay with uncertainty and a lot of variability? Dr Muehlschlegel: Well, you know, neuroprognostication - I think everyone has to acknowledge that we cannot take away uncertainty, right? So, folks who pretend that they know for sure what's going to happen - I think the only time we can say that is in a patient who's braindead. But everyone else, we really don't know for sure, and all we can do is do the best to our ability to give a rough outlook - but we need to acknowledge uncertainty, that's for sure. Dr Monteith: So, can you just give us a few of the biggest causes of variability when it comes to withdrawing life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe acute brain injuries? Dr Muehlschlegel: So, that's the focus of quite some research. And, of course, there are many epidemiological factors, patient severity of disease, and, you know, how fast someone might arrive to the hospital, ethnic, racial, social demographic factors (and there's research on that), but when you adjust and control for all of those factors, variability remains. And so, what I've observed in my practice and what I also describe in the article is that maybe it's the way physicians describe prognostication or communicate with families, meaning there is potentially the chance for physician bias - that may also drive prognostication. And I can tell you from my own experience, what really drove me into this area is anecdotal experience that probably we've all had of other physicians kind of nihilistically prognosticating, thinking, you know, "This is going to be bad no matter what”, and not even wanting to try to provide aggressive care to patients. So, I think these what we call “self-fulfilling prophecies” we need to be very aware of. So, I think some of the variability may be driven by other factors other than family, patient, or health system factors. Dr Monteith: And you outline that really nicely in the article, so thank you for that. Why don't you just give us an example of a challenging case that maybe you're still thinking about today, that maybe happened years ago, that helps us understand what you go through? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah, I'll rephrase the case. I still have, you know, very vivid memories about this, but I tell my residents about this case. When I was a fellow, there was a young patient in his early forties, a father of several children, a young family man who had a big right MCA stroke and really was progressing to the point that it was clear that he needed a hemicraniectomy or he was going to die. Discussed this with my attending, who said I should consult neurosurgery. At the time, the neurosurgical service had a transition to practice service for these emergencies - and so, these were fairly young, chief residents or early-year attendings. And the person came in, went into the patient's room, and I didn't even know about it, and came out and then just said, “Family decided for CMO”. I was very surprised and shocked and was trying to understand how this happened, and this provider, all he said was, “Well, it's all how you put it to the family. I told him that he probably shouldn't be a vegetable. They didn't want him to be a vegetable, and so this was the only option.” And, so, I was very shocked, and the patient did progress to die within a few days. And, so, that was a dire example of how biased prognostication can drive families to maybe an unnecessary outcome. Dr Monteith: And what's CMO? Dr Muehlschlegel: I'm sorry. Comfort measures only - so, essentially, a withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies. Dr Monteith: Yeah. That is a good example of that and how our bias can inform families and maybe not with the exact amount of data to support that, as you outlined so nicely in your article. Dr Muehlschlegel: And I do want to emphasize, I don't want to generalize that all providers are like that, but it is an example that really still sticks in the back of my mind, and I think, you know, we need to shine a light at how we do this and how we do it right or wrong. Dr Monteith: And wouldn't it be nice to just have more objective measures (right?) to guide us? So why don't we talk about existing tools that are used to help guide neuroprognostication? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah, so I think, in general, we can break down prognostication to two pieces (and I outline that in the article as well). So, one is, kind of, a derivation of prognostication in the head of a physician or, you know, clinician – and what may go into that is how the patient presented, examination, radiology or other diagnostics, biomarkers, you name it. But, then the second part of it (that also is really important) is how we put it to the family, right? Because we can influence families in a way that we may not even be aware of, and I think we all have unconscious biases, and how we talk to families is really important and may drive what happens to the patient as well. So, I always say there's two pieces to that – so, first of all, how we come up with a prognosis, and then how we disclose that to the family. Dr Monteith: So how can we better handle uncertainty? Dr Muehlschlegel: So, we actually did some research on that and we asked stakeholders, "How do you want physicians to handle uncertainty?”. People are aware that no physician can be certain (again, other than in the case of brain death), and so families are very aware of that. And there's quite some data out there to suggest that if physicians have very absolute statements - you know, want to close the door by saying something very absolute - is that the optimistic bias in families goes up. So, the mistrust in what the physician is saying, coming up with their own (you know, “This is a fighter, and he or she is going to do better than what you're saying”) - and, so, I think, you know, there's no true answer to what's the absolute right way to do it, but some have suggested to maybe fully acknowledge that there is uncertainty. That's actually what families want you to do, based on some qualitative research we've done – is to say, “I do not have a crystal ball. There will be uncertainty”, but then to potentially go into a best/ worst-case scenario. But again, there, all we can do is give a best gross estimate and guess. And so, the work is not really clear at this point. There's research ongoing as to what should be the best way of doing it, but currently, that's what is suggested. Dr Monteith: And in your article, you spoke about some pretty innovative approaches, such as modeling, to help guide shared decision-making. And, so, you know, how reliable is that? Dr Muehlschlegel: That's a good point, right? So, that is up to statisticians or those who are inventing these new models. So, you know, in the old days we used logistic regression, maybe linear regression. Now, there are fancy machine-learning modeling and other Bayesian models that people use, and they certainly have some advantages that I outlined in the article. Bayesian models, for example, may use serial data as it comes in throughout the patient's hospital course - and that's kind of how we do it in real life. But, I think what's really important before we apply models is that we know that there's always outliers, and we don't know if this one patient might be the outlier, and that we need to validate these models, and most importantly, look at calibration. So, I talk in the article about how, you know, all models always report the what's called “area under the receiver-operating curve (the AUC)”, which is discrimination. But, what's actually more important for a model to be applied to a patient at the bedside is calibration, meaning how well does it actually predict a potential outcome. And, you know, there's a lot of research into that, that only maybe half of the papers that report on a new model actually report calibration - so, I think it's really important to pay attention to that (has the model been validated and calibrated before we actually use these models?). I think prediction models have definitely a important role. But, then again, as the article says, we also have to think about how we then apply that to the patient and how we do it in individual patients. Dr Monteith: And then, of course, there's some variability between institutions. Dr Muehlschlegel: That's for sure. You know, there's these systematic approaches or system-based cultures in certain institutions. And then, of course, you know, there's still this model of learning from a role model or a mentor or an attending - meaning you look at how this person does it and then you may adapt it to your own practice. I think we need to critically examine whether we need to continue with that kind of apprenticeship model of learning how to neuroprognosticate, or whether we need to have other educational ways of doing that. So, especially in the field of palliative care, there's a lot of education now around communication - and I think med students get that exposure, and residents may get that exposure, too - but I think we need to practice it and study it systematically, whether having a standardized approach to do this leads to more patient-congruent decisions. Dr Monteith: And, you know, we do have a lot of trainees, residents, and fellows that listen in. So, what are some key messages that you want to make sure gets conveyed? Dr Muehlschlegel: Key messages is that, I think, we need to move away from looking at a patient the first one or two weeks and then concluding that we will know what will happen to this patient in six months or a year or further down the line. I think there's not a lot of longitudinal studies out there now that show that patients actually probably do better than expected if they're allowed to live. And what I mean by that is many studies allow early withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies within the first three days or maybe two weeks - but if we actually allow these patients to live, people wake up more than we thought, people may do better than we thought. So, referring to the article, I discuss in detail some twelve-month data from the TRACK-TBI study or very interesting results from South Korea where withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies is forbidden by law. And, so, you can actually do a true natural-history study of what happens with these patients if you allow them to live. And, surprisingly, a lot of people that, you know, within the first two weeks were still comatose actually ended up waking up. And, I think it's really important to look at those studies and to continue to conduct those studies so that we know better what might happen. I always shudder a little bit when I hear, “We need an MRI in the first few days or first week for neuroprognostication”. And then I always question, “Well, what is it really going to tell you about that patient who clearly isn't brain dead and still has certain, you know, exam findings?” and “Shouldn't we just give those patients time?”. I think some of those were a bit too quick to provide poor prognostication if we really don't know. Dr Monteith: And, so, I want to know how did you get into research? You know, it can be competitive to get funding, grant funding - so, tell us about that in terms of, you know, your day-to-day, what's it like? And then, also, what makes you most excited about research happening in this area? Dr Muehlschlegel: Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of research happening in that area. I think there's a huge focus on biomarkers and models and all sorts of new diagnostic tools to predict outcome, big push over decades now to do large longitudinal epidemiological studies - and all of those are very, very important, you know. I just mentioned as an example, the TRACK-TBI study is one of many other examples. I'm also excited about doing research in the second part of neuroprognostication that I mentioned - the communication and disclosure part - and the potential of bias as we speak to families. So, I get very excited about that part. It's not easy to get funding, but I think what's important is to focus on the potential impact. And, of course, then you try to convince funders that this is important research that has to be done in addition to funding model development and large epidemiological studies. What my day-to-day looks like? Well, you know, we have several ongoing projects (I won't get into details on that), but to get involved would probably be the best time as a trainee - so, I have medical students working with us, residents and fellows (although their time can be limited). And then to continue to just be curious and ask questions. Dr Monteith: And what do you find most exciting about the work that you do? Just, kind of, overall? Dr Muehlschlegel: I mean, without a doubt, the potential impact, right? So, changing the field a little bit. I'm not claiming that my research is doing that - I hope it might. But, most importantly, it's the potential impact on families and patients. I think our goal is not to have less withdrawal of care (although, sometimes, I just think we need to give people more time), but I think it's important to focus and ask about what patients might want, and then really focus families onto that. I think that can be difficult, because patients don't always tell families what they would want or families want something different than what they know the patient might want - and so, we spend quite some time on that when we speak to families. And then, I also talk about the disability paradox. So, you know, at one point, the family might say, “Well, he would not want to live if he can't walk”, but then, patients, as they learn to live with this new normal, may actually later say, “Well, it's not as bad as I expected it to be, and I'm actually very happy to be alive, even if I'm not able to walk”. And so, that's something that others are doing research on, and that's also important to consider. Dr Monteith: Yeah, that's cool. Thinking about outside of the ICU, right? Dr Muehlschlegel: For sure. Yes. Dr Monteith: Great. Thank you so much for being on our podcast. I know that our listeners are going to really enjoy reading your article and all the thought that you put into that. Dr Muehlschlegel: Thank you so much for having me.   Dr Monteith: Again, today, we've been interviewing Dr Susanne Muehlschlegel whose article on prognostication in neurocritical care appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on neurocritical care. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio episodes from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is doctor Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing to the journal. There's a link in the episode notes. We'd also appreciate you following the podcast and rating or reviewing it. AAN members, go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME for this episode. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

In this episode, we dive into the fascinating story of Podbeat, an app that merges podcasts with beats to create an engaging and uplifting listening experience. Created by Nathan and Joy, a dynamic duo inspired by Joy's journey of overcoming sight loss, Podbeat aims to make podcasts more accessible and enjoyable. We explore their two-year development journey, their participation in Founder University, and their presentation at a Global Conference. Nathan and Joy share their experiences, challenges, and the joy of working together, emphasizing their commitment to positively impacting lives. They also discuss future plans for expanding their beat library and forming partnerships with other podcasters. Keywords Podbeat, app, podcasts, beats, engagement, uplifting, accessibility, growth, power couple, teamwork Takeaways Innovative App: Podbeat combines podcasts and beats for an engaging listening experience. Inspiration: Inspired by Joy's use of beats in workouts after losing her sight. Growth Journey: A two-year development journey, including Founder University and the Collision Conference. Teamwork: Nathan and Joy value teamwork and making a positive impact. Future Plans: Expanding beat library and exploring partnerships with podcasters. Sound Bites “You literally have to jump out of the plane and build the parachute on the way down.” “Podbeat is a real thought-out method that evolves and takes you through the content.” “There's nothing we can't achieve.” Chapters 00:00 - Introduction and Thanking the Guests We start with a warm welcome to Nathan and Joy and a thank you for joining the episode. 02:31 - The Origin Story of Podbeat Nathan and Joy share the inspiring story behind the creation of Podbeat, highlighting Joy's journey and how it sparked the idea for the app. 09:25 - The Impact of Podbeat on Workouts and Engagement Discussion on how Podbeat enhances workouts and user engagement, making podcasts more enjoyable. 18:42 - The Challenges and Growth of Podbeat Exploring the challenges faced during the development of Podbeat and their experiences at Founder University and the Collision Conference. 27:59 - Empowering Women and Inner Child Healing Joy and Nathan talk about their commitment to empowering women and the importance of inner child healing. 30:23 - Working as a Power Couple and What's Next for Podbeat Nathan and Joy discuss the dynamics of working together as a couple and share their exciting plans for the future of Podbeat. Links & Resources: Podbeat App: Download the Podbeat app Check out our new Podpage! : Connect with Us: @deziabeyta and @imadeitpod on Instagram Review & Subscribe: Love what you're hearing? Please leave a review and subscribe to our podcast on Youtube! Signing Off: To our vibrant community of High Performers, remember, each step you take towards understanding and optimizing your performance brings you closer to your goals. Keep striving, stay curious, and support one another. Until next time, keep thriving in your quest for health and excellence!

Architect and Engineer Ben Massmann from Texas worked systematically to find a safe country to settle down with his wife and six kids. He looked for a place with minimal influence from the globalists, conservative values, safety, friendliness towards small businesses, government stability, possibilities for homeschooling, gun rights and the opportunity to get residency and settle down legally. In this episode, he shares his thoughts and considerations about different countries. Massmann has understood the deception in politics for many years. He has observed how the political right and left in reality both leads to a technocratic, totalitarian society. Massmann explains six scenarios that could play out in the coming years. He strongly believes that people should be as independent as possible, but also find communities and networks of like-minded people. Massmann is building “Corazon del Cielo”, a community for fellow Christians in the highlands of Panama. He welcomes people to contact him and check out the community. As well, he encourages people to create like-minded communities in other countries, and create worldwide networks.Ben Massmann:› Corazon Del Cielo • YouTube ChannelBen's book suggestion:› Brotherhood of darkness by Monteith, StanleyBen's six scenarios:› 1. A Slow Great Reset› 2. A Fast Great Reset› 3. The Depopulation Agenda› 4. The Great Awakening› 5. World War III› 6. Alien DisclosureBen's seven stages of community building:› 1. Unification of like-minded people› 2. Establish a physical community› 3. Training and education, mentorship and disipleship› 4. Developing private businesses, institutions and organisations› 5. Networking with professionals and organisations locally› 6. Expanding to regional or international networks› 7. Devlopment of economic zones or charter citiesTopics discussed:› panama (search)› chile (search)› paraguay (search)› uruguay (search)› belize (search) • ambergris caye (search) • mennonites in belize (search)› mexico (search)› el salvador (search)› peru (search)› ecuador (search)› skynet (search)› congress hearings of anthony fauci (search)› 11th of september (search) • ae911truth (search) • world trade center bulding 7 (search)› false flag events (search)› king david and bathsheba (search)› the georgia guidestones (search)› technocracy (search)› operation warp speed (search)› norwegian vat (search)› norwegian tax rates (search)› deagel report (search)› technological plateau (search)› steve jackson games illuminati playing card (search)› the garden of eden (search) • the tree of life (search)› gnosticism (search)› prospera roatan honduras (search)Related AJP-episodes:› AJP 52 | Patrick Wood — A new economic order is being enforced› AJP 68 | Richard Gage — 3500 architects and engineers opposing 9/11 narrative› AJP 126 | Alison Forezli — Fled Canada and found freedom in MexicoDownload this episodeRecorded: 2024-06-19Published: 2024-07-12Support Antijantepodden?Do you appreciate the work we do, and want to support future episodes?Find out how you can give something back to us at antijantepodden.com!Subscribe to our newsletter

Canadian progressive black metal band SVNEATR recently released their Prosthetic Records debut, Never Return. Bandleader Vitharr Monteith guests on this episode of Getting It Out to discuss the band, the new record, and the future of this unique blend of extreme music.Music by:PortraitSvneatrHuntsmenIntro music by:Hot ZonePatreon: https://www.patreon.com/GettingitoutpodcastEmail: dan@gettingitout.netWebsite: http://gettingitout.net/Instagram: @getting_it_out_podcastFacebook: www.facebook.com/gettingitoutpodcastX: @GettingItOutPod Get bonus content on PatreonSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/getting-it-out. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Brian Monteith is a British politician, public relations consultant and commentator. Brian was a Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) with the Conservatives from 1999 to 2007 and later a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) with the Brexit Party. Brian also writes for the Scotsman Newspaper. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: James Roguski is a researcher, author, and activist who, in March 2022, uncovered documents regarding proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and was instrumental in raising awareness about them which resulted in the amendments being rejected. James is now doing everything possible to expose the World Health Organization's hidden agenda behind their proposed "pandemic treaty" as well as the WHO's ongoing attempts to amend the International Health Regulations. https://jamesroguski.substack.com/

A new MP3 sermon from Omagh Free Presbyterian Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Service of Thanksgiving - Walter Ernest Monteith Speaker: Rev. Garth Wilson Broadcaster: Omagh Free Presbyterian Church Event: Funeral Service Date: 4/15/2024 Length: 41 min.

Most patients with migraine require acute treatment for at least some attacks. There is no one-size-fits-all acute treatment and multiple treatment trials are sometimes necessary to determine the optimal regimen for patients. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Rebecca Burch, MD, FAHS author of the article “Acute Treatment of Migraine,” in the Continuum April 2024 Headache issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Burch is an assistant professor in the Department of Neurological Sciences at Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.  Additional Resources Read the article: Acute Treatment of Migraine Subscribe to Continuum: continpub.com/Spring2024 Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Guest: @RebeccaCBurch Transcript Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the Show Notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the Show Notes. AAN members, stay turned after the episode to get CME for listening. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. Today I'm interviewing Dr Rebecca Burch on acute treatment of migraine, which is part of the April 2024 Continuum issue on headache. Dr Burch is an Assistant Professor at Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont. Well, hi, Rebecca - thank you so much for being on our podcast. Dr Burch: Thank you so much for having me. It's always such a pleasure to talk with you. Dr Monteith: You wrote a really excellent article on acute management of migraine - really detailed. Dr Burch: Thanks so much. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I had a lot of fun writing it. Dr Monteith: Why don't you tell our listeners, what did you set out to do in writing this article? Dr Burch: Whenever I write a review article on a topic, I aim for two things, and these were the same things that I was aiming for here with this one. One is practicality and just for it to be really applicable to clinical practice and every day what we do - the ins and outs - and that was the case here as well. I really love a good table in a paper like this. I spend a lot of time on tables. I want people to be able to print them out, use them as reference, bookmark them. So, that was one thing that I aimed for - was just for this to be really useful. The other thing is, I really wanted to instill a sense of confidence in people after reading this article. I think the management of migraine can be very overwhelming for people taking care of people with migraine. And there are so many acute treatment options, so I wanted to give a framework for how to think about acute treatment (how to approach it), and then within that framework, to really go into the nuances of all the various options, and how to choose between them, and what to do in specific circumstances. And I also really wanted to cover what to do when the first couple of options don't work. Because I think most neurologists, PCPs, are comfortable prescribing sumatriptan, and then the question is, what happens when that doesn't work or the patient doesn't tolerate it? What do you do for rescue therapy? What do you do for your fifth-line treatment? And I think that was an area that I really wanted to cover as well. Dr Monteith: Yeah, you got a lot done, for sure. So, I agree - there's been so many options, new options, even over the past five or definitely ten years. One of the things that excited me about going into headache medicine were all the options, thinking of migraine and other headache disorders as a treatable disorder. What made you interested in headache medicine? Dr Burch: Like so many other people who ended up going into headache medicine, I had a fantastic mentor in residency who was really great at treating headache patients - as Brian McGeeney at Boston Medical Center (he's now at Brigham and Women's). He was really passionate about headache medicine, and seeing patients with him was always such a delight because he always had something to try. And many other situations, it would be, like, “Well, this person, we've tried something; we don't know what else to do.” But when you work with a headache specialist as a mentor or as a preceptor, they have so many things they can do, and people largely get better. And they're so grateful - it changes people's lives to be able to treat their migraine, their other headaches effectively. So that was really inspiring. And then when I started doing headache rotations and sort of thinking about whether this was the right subspecialty for me, I quickly realized two things about headache medicine that ended up being what I really love about it to this day. One is the longitudinal relationships that we have with patients - we take care of people for a long time. And it doesn't always have to be that we're seeing people every three months and making tweaks - sometimes it's once a year. But we do get to know people. You know, I have two children. Many of my patients saw me through both of those pregnancies and ask about my kids, and it's just lovely to have that sort of personal relationship over time. And then the other aspect that I really love is that we can't see patients in isolation just as their migraine disorder or headache disorder; we really have to think about who they are as a whole person. What's going on in your life? What are your stressors? How's your job, how's your family? How are you sleeping? How's your mood? Are you exercising? What's your diet like? All of these things impact how someone's migraine disorder is going. And I like to joke, “I'm half life coach, you know, and half pharmacologist,” and I love that. I love that I bring my whole self every time I see a patient and see their whole self, too. Dr Monteith: I can just imagine how well you do that. You mentioned the power of mentorship, and that seems to be a theme when interviewing authors (that mentors are super important). And I know you've been an incredible mentor. Why don't you tell us a little bit about your academic journey? I mean, I see you in the halls at these major conferences, but I've never pulled you aside and said, “Hey, what's your journey - your academic journey – like, other than your great editorial work for neurology, of course?” Dr Burch: I did my fellowship at Brigham and Women's and then stayed on there as an attending, and ultimately took over as fellowship director before I took a break, which I'll talk about in a minute. In that time, I was doing clinical care and I had a research program and I was doing education - doing a lot of teaching for CME work, and teaching primary care and subspecialists about migraine - and I really love that piece of things - and precepting fellows. And then, I also had my editorial work on top of that. I have been a medical journal editor as long as I have been a headache specialist. We were talking about mentors, and I want to talk, at some point, about my fantastic mentor, Elizabeth Loder, who is also a research editor, in addition to being an outstanding headache medicine clinician and researcher and educator. But she got me started as an Assistant Editor for Headache in my fellowship year - the journal Headache - and I continued as an Associate Editor there. I worked as a Research Editor for the British Medical Journal for a while and then joined the journal Neurology, where I am one of the eight Associate Editors. I cover the general neurology portfolio, which includes a lot of things - includes headache medicine, includes traumatic brain injury, pain, spine, neuro-oncology, neuro-otology - there's a whole bunch of different things that I have learned a lot about since starting as an editor. So, I have always had a lot of different parts to my job, which keeps me interested. It's also a lot, and I do always talk about the fact that I ended up taking a year off because I think it's important to be real about the lives that we lead and our jobs as academic neurologist. So I ended up having a bunch of family health issues that came up in 2021, and combined with all of the other things that we're doing, I just couldn't keep it all going. And I ended up getting sort of burned out a little bit and was having trouble balancing all of that and the family health issues that were going on. And I ended up taking about a year off from clinical work. I continued with my editorial work and kind of got everything sorted out with my family, and then just started my current position in January. I'd just like to bring that up to show that – you know, not everyone's going to be able to take a year off - I recognize that. But I think it's important to normalize that just being “pedal to the metal” all the time is not feasible for anyone. And we need to recognize that it's okay to take breaks periodically. So, I'm kind of an evangelist for the “taking-a-break model.” Dr Monteith: Yeah, you took a break but you kind of didn't, because you've been doing a lot for us in neurology, and I certainly appreciate that. Speaking about all of that and feeling burnt out - what inspires you; what does keep you going? Because I know you keep going. Dr Burch: I do. Well, it's really funny - when I took my time off, I used that as an opportunity to really think about, “Okay, is this really what I want to be doing? Is this the right path for me? Do I want to rethink things?” And I ended up in the same job that I left, just in a different place. I'm still doing clinical care, and I'm the fellowship director of my current institution, and I still do all this education, and I'm getting my research program going, and I'm still an editor. So, I think the bottom line is, I have always loved what I do; it's just a question of making it all fit. So, you know, when I get up in the morning, when it's a clinic day, I am so excited to just go and talk to my patients and see how they're doing and see if there's something I can do to make them feel better. And it's just delightful to be able to play that role in people's lives, even if they're not getting better. You know, I think sometimes just being there with them is of service and is worth doing, and that feels very meaningful to me. And I have a fellow now. I love working with my fellow and teaching, and I love just talking about headache medicine and, you know, “What can we do to help people?” So, that really inspires me. On an editorial day, I'm interested in what research people are doing and seeing how neurology can publish the best research possible. We're all moving the field forward and it's just delightful to see what people are doing. I don't know - I like all of it. Dr Monteith: Yeah - you spoke about talking to patients and having that interaction. I'm thinking about migraine and patients going into status, having severe attacks. Is there any case that really moved you, made you think differently? Dr Burch: What really sticks out in my mind when I think about acute treatment, in particular, is what doesn't necessarily fit neatly into the algorithms that we develop. The situations where creativity and persistence and working together really make a big difference for a patient. I am the first person to tell you we do not know everything yet, and maybe we will never know everything. And I think sometimes we need to think outside the box. We need to “listen between the lines” to what people are telling us, and really work together to figure out a very individualized, well-crafted plan. I'm thinking about times that - for example, someone came to me and said, “I'm having these intermittent episodes where I get all of the symptoms of migraine but I don't get headache pain. You know, I get the nausea and I get the photophobia and I'm irritable and, you know, what do I do about this?” And we ended up saying, “Okay, well, take your triptan and let's see what happens,” after trying some other things. And it worked, and it turned out to be the only thing that worked. And that's maybe something we wouldn't think about because we talk about pain all the time and that was really key to improving that person's quality of life. Or, you know, trying to figure out - if there's a situation that provokes an attack pretty reliably, how do we decide when this person is going to take their acute medication ahead of time to try and prevent that from happening? So, for example, somebody who always gets a migraine when they get on the airplane - can we maybe think about doing that? Is it part of the algorithm that we all think of? No, but it's what's right for that person. I feel like I am doing my best work when I really sit with the person and their individual story and listen to how they describe their experience, and then partner with them to come up with something that really works for their specific situation. Dr. Monteith: Give us a few tips. You mentioned the use of triptans, even thinking about most bothersome symptoms, associated symptoms. Let's say they tried the triptan, they have a severe migraine, and still with pain two hours later - what do we say? Dr Burch: Yeah, and I think this is - like I said at the beginning, this is where people often start to feel a little anxious sometimes; you've tried the triptan, it's not necessarily working - what do you do? I think there's a couple of things. First of all, triptans are still first line for migraine - in the absence of vascular risk factors, that's still what we start with. The guidelines ask us to try two different triptans before we try switching to a different class. So, the first thing - most people start with sumatriptan (it's the oldest one; it's usually covered well by insurance). So, first thing to ask is, what was the patient's experience with it? Was it not strong enough? Did it not work fast enough? Was it too strong? And then you think about - based on that response, are we going to go to eletriptan, which is kind of considered to be the strongest or most effective of the triptans? Are we going to go to rizatriptan, which is faster onset? Are we going to go to naratriptan or frovatriptan, which lasts longer? Then, if the second triptan doesn't work, we think about moving to a gepant - that's what the guidelines are currently recommending. The other thing to consider is whether someone needs an antinausea medication or an antiemetic, because if people are feeling queasy, they're worried about vomiting, then they may be reluctant to take medication. Or it could be that their GI system just isn't working as well, so we need to think about better absorption of the oral medications as well. There are lots of other tips and tricks also. I don't want to go through the whole list, but one of the things that I put in the article is a whole set of things to do if triptans are not effective or if your acute treatment is not effective. It's also things like making sure they're treating early, using combinations of medications - there's a whole list. Then that brings us to rescue therapy. And I think that's also essential; we don't talk enough about rescue therapy. We do think about it, but we think about it when we get the phone call to our clinic, where we get the message that says, “I took my treatment didn't work. And this is the second time this has happened. And I'm desperate, and what do I do?” That's not when you want to be managing this. You want to be managing this at the visit, before it happens. So, I think anybody who has an attack occasionally that doesn't respond to treatment needs a rescue plan. There's a bunch of different things you can do - I talk about this in the article as well - but some backup, like an injectable sumatriptan, might be helpful. Sometimes we use sedating medications to just try and help people go to sleep. I personally really like to give phenothiazine antiemetics because they have intrinsic antimigraine properties as well as being sedating and helping with nausea, so I sometimes use those. But there are a lot of different strategies and it's just worthwhile looking through them and getting comfortable with a few of them to give patients as a backup plan. Dr Monteith: I loved – I did love your tables. I love that you put the devices in the tables because usually when we think about neuromodulation, that's almost like usually a separate article. But you went ahead and combined it because all of the devices may have some acute benefits for patients. So, how do you think about devices? How do you talk to patients about devices? Dr Burch: Yeah, well, all of them were originally tested for acute treatment before their preventive indications. So, I think it's appropriate; if we're thinking about a plan, we want to have everything in one place, which is why I always include neuromodulation. The neuromodulation device that has the strongest evidence is remote electrical neuromodulation, which is the band that patient wears on their arm and uses as an acute strategy. The others may be helpful for individual patients, but I tend to lean towards the remote electrical neuromodulation as my acute treatment of choice just because of the strength of the evidence. I also haven't had as much trouble getting it for patients. The big barrier for all of these neuromodulation devices is cost because, relatively - I mean, they're not cheap and they're almost never covered by insurance (sometimes they are, but not always), and many of our patients are going to be able to access them and many of our patients are not. So, I'm always judicious in the way that I talk about them because I don't really want to put people in the situation of having to say, “I can't afford this thing that you think would be great for me.” Which, of course, comes up - not just with neuromodulation but with medication as well. But, you know, I think they're good for people who don't want to take medication or who are taking medications too often, and we need something to throw in there that is not a medication to prevent the development of medication overuse headache. Some people just prefer them. The evidence is not as strong for neuromodulation as it is for acute medications - and some of that just has to do with the challenges in blinding people to treatment arm in a clinical trial - but I think they have their place. Dr Monteith: When I'm just looking at the data, and then, as you mentioned, there are multiple options in terms of the latest developments. What are the things that you're most excited about in terms of either nonpharmacological, pharmacological interventions, or even patient populations like pregnant patients or patients with cardiovascular disease. Dr Burch: It is such an exciting time to be a headache specialist. I feel like things are coming out all the time, even in between writing this article and sending the final draft in, and now new things have come out. The zavegepant nasal spray is now FDA approved for acute treatment of migraine, and that was not the case when I wrote the final draft of this article. So, new formulations of medications are coming out and that's just really exciting. I think different patients prefer different things, and so I kind of like having different options to give them. I'm really interested in a couple of different things. There's been a lot of research coming out recently about the migraine prodrome - this sensation or symptom constellation that some patients get before what we think of as the more typical migraine – so, before the pain, maybe even before the more typical sensory hypersensitivity. Some patients know that an attack is coming, and there has been some research very recently coming out showing that, with gepants, taking the gepant before the attack actually happens in the prodromal phase can stave off an attack. I think that's cutting edge. I haven't really started talking to patients about it, but I'm interested to see what happens when that research is fully published and we kind of start test driving it. I'm also interested in the way that gepants don't seem to cause medication overuse headache in the same way that triptans or frequent use of NSAIDs do. I'm kind of thinking that the line between acute treatment and preventive treatment may start to get blurred a little bit with gepants. Dr Monteith: It's already blurred. Dr Burch: It's already blurred! It's pretty blurred, right? Dr Monteith: I agree. And it'd be cool to see an update on this article. It might need to be just a whole - imagine a whole kind of issue on its own, on just acute treatments. Dr Burch: Yes, for sure. Dr Monteith: Great. Thank you so much for being here. Dr Burch: Thanks. It's always a pleasure to talk to you, and I'm really excited for this article to make it out into the wild in the real world and for people to get a chance to take a look at it. Dr Monteith: Yeah, I know our listeners are going to love this article - they're going to get a lot out of it. And most importantly, their patients are going to get a lot out of it. Dr Burch: That's my goal. Dr Monteith: Again, today we've been interviewing Dr Rebecca Burch, whose article on acute treatment of migraine appears in the most recent issue of Continuum, on headache. Be sure to check out Continuum audio podcasts from this and other issues. And thank you to our listeners for joining me today.   Dr. Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, you'll love the journal, which is full of in-depth and clinically relevant information important for neurology practice. Right now, during our Spring Special, all subscriptions are 15% off. Go to Continpub.com/Spring2024, or use the link in the episode notes to learn more and take advantage of this great discount. This offer ends June 30, 2024. AAN members: go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

Robby hosts Kevin Monteith of the Monteith Shop on today's episode.  Kevin is one of the leading researchers on mule deer and other ungulates. Based out of the University of Wyoming, their mission statement is "Advancing Science and Management, One Data Point at a Time." You can follow the Monteith Shop here Robby and Kevin jump into the difference between a shop and a lab and why it matters to deer hunters. And they cover the emerging research on mule deer out of the Wyoming Range and beyond. Kevin answers the question: Are there big deer in Wyoming outside of the Wyoming Range? Good deer hunters stay up on the research and in these trying times for mule deer, good research is essential. They also give a preview to the upcoming Mule Deer Days to be held in Rocksprings, Wyoming Thursday May 2nd through Saturday May 4th by our friends the Muley Fanatic Foundation. Find more information here and we hope to see you at Mule Deer Days. Kevin Monteith and The Monteith Shop will be presenting current research at the event. Rokcast is powered by onX Hunt. For 20% off, use Promo Code “Rokcast” at onX Hunt here https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/app You can find Robby's books, Hunting Big Mule Deer and The Stories on Amazon here or signed copies from the Rokslide store here     

Too much, or not enough? A wide range of nutritional deficiencies and toxic exposures may cause spinal cord dysfunction. To make matters even more confusing, the clinical presentations for these disorders may overlap. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Kathryn Holroyd, MD, an author of the article “Metabolic and Toxic Myelopathies,” in the Continuum February 2024 Spinal Cord Disorders issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Holroyd is an instructor in the Department of Neurology at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. Additional Resources Read the article: Metabolic and Toxic Myelopathies Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud More about the American Academy of Neurology: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Transcript  Full transcript available on Libsyn Dr Jones: This is Dr Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast to the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Kathryn Holroyd on toxic metabolic myelopathies, which is part of the February Continuum issue on spinal cord disorders. Dr. Holroyd is an instructor in the Department of Neurology at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. Katie, thank you so much for being with us on the podcast, and thank you so much for your excellent article. It was filled with a lot of really great tips. Dr Holroyd: Thank you - happy to be here. Dr. Monteith: I want to start off with knowing, how did you gain expertise in spinal cord diseases? Dr Holroyd: Yeah, I have a fairly diverse clinical background. My primary work now is as a neurohospitalist. But after residency training, I did two one-year fellowships: one in neuroimmunology and one in neuroinfectious diseases. I think, with those things together – you know, a lot of these, especially acute-onset myelopathies, tend to present inpatient for diagnosis – so, we see a lot of those in my hospital practice. Then, I think, specifically for toxic metabolic myelopathies - to identify these, you often have to know what it's not. So, my experience with some of the other autoimmune and infectious disorders really comes into play. Then finally, I kind of focused on global health work, which is why I primarily do neurohospitalist work - to allow for travel. I spent the past year working at a neuro HIV research site in Thailand, and I've done some work (mainly with education) in Zambia. But I've seen that, kind of, all how people's environments and local areas can really affect what disorders are more common, and I think it's really important to take that into account with especially this topic, as well. Dr Monteith: Well, your work in global health could be a whole other area, a whole other podcast that I would really want to record with you. But let's start with, what did you seek to accomplish when writing your article? Dr Holroyd: I think, when I was writing the article along with Dr. Berkowitz, the co-author, we really wanted to focus on things that would be clinically relevant, not just for neurologists, but for clinicians all over who may not have access to a subspecialist neurologist. We tried to focus less on metabolic pathways or disturbances and focus more on clinical pearls. I tried to think, “When I see these patients, what are the questions that I have that are not easily answerable from Google or UpToDate or a textbook? And how can we really use primary evidence to answer some of those questions? For example, what percent of patients with B12 deficiency actually have an abnormal MRI? Those are the things we were asking ourselves and, hopefully, that we were able to answer through the article. We focused on three main categories of toxic metabolic myelopathies, as you can see from the work. Dr Monteith: So, specifically, you've been writing about nutritional deficiencies, environmental and dietary toxins, drug abuse, medical illnesses, and oncological treatments. When you wrote your article and, comparing it to even, like, five or ten years ago, what has changed? Dr Holroyd: It's a great question because, I think, even when I started writing the article, it's easy to feel like not much has changed in these particular disorders. But if you go deeper, I think that's not the case. The main ways in which things have changed, I think, on the nutritional front, is there's been an increase in weight loss and weight-loss surgery, which is one of the main contributors to all nutritional deficiencies. The second main category is - in some of these toxic myelopathies - is the increasing rates of drug use, particularly heroin, which we talk about in detail in the article. Additionally, along those lines, with climate change - we often don't think about the way that climate change can really affect disorders that are related to nutrition or the way that certain foods are prepared, especially with increasing rates of drought, and that really relates to konzo. Finally, there's been great advances in the treatment of all sorts of cancers, particularly with immunologic therapy. The one immunologic complication we talk about is with immune checkpoint inhibitors, and I think there's been a huge increase in clinicians seeing these as complications of checkpoint inhibition. So, those are the three main ways that I think these have evolved in the past decade. Dr Monteith: Great. You spoke about your interest in clinical pearls - can you describe some essential points that you wanted readers to take away with when diagnosing and managing patients that are presenting with myelopathies thought to be due to toxic or metabolic etiologies? Dr Holroyd: Yeah, and a lot of these are so different it's hard to find overarching themes, but I think there are a few that come through in the article. The first is that a lot - not all, but a lot - of these are reversible. Diagnosing them early is important and can really make a difference in patient outcomes. The second is a real clinical principle of all neurology that I learned from Dr Berkowitz, my co-author - is that neurology really is time course and localization. Amongst these, I think it's important to look at the time course, whether it's acute or subacute, and the location in the cord, whether it's a subacute combined degeneration or a more dorsal-column-only-predominant myelopathy - that can help you narrow the differential. A couple other small things is that, overall, these toxic myelopathies tend to be more thoracic cord-predominant and affect the legs more than the arms. In the majority of cases, the MRI will actually be normal, which is a big difference from a lot of the other autoimmune or infectious myelopathies. I think those are some main takeaways. And finally, you really have to be careful when you're interpreting the lab tests and make sure that the clinical picture fits with the lab tests that you're measuring - for example, the vitamin or other cause - and make sure that you really are correlating the diagnosis with that test. Then, I think the cause of the deficiency will affect your treatment choice; whether you're dosing supplements orally or IV, and what dose you choose - those are the major things to take into account. Dr Monteith: I really like what you say because, I think, as neurologists, we are always thinking about localization, localization, localization, but that time course also matters for a number of diseases. Dr Holroyd: And to that point, I think the clinical diagnosis is particularly important in resource-limited settings, where advanced diagnostics, such as MRI or lumbar puncture, may not be available. For example, konzo - the WHO has very clear clinical criteria of how to define this disorder, given that in most of the regions where cassava root is primarily eaten, there are not these diagnostics. I think we can apply that globally or even in our own practice in areas of the US or other places - to really rely on your clinical judgment and the time course and the localization of the biolopathy[IG1] . Dr Monteith: Yeah. What was that like when you were practicing in Zambia? Dr Holroyd: I worked primarily with Dr Deanna Saylor, who is there funding and working with neurology residents, and we would see a wide variety of clinical cases but have very little real-time information. So, I really admire the residents who train and work in Zambia and have to make clinical decisions with very little information. In those settings, the history – so, asking people about recent ingestions, any drugs, diet at home, any exposures that might cause increased risk of these conditions - is very important. And sometimes you have to rely on empiric treatments, such as vitamin B12, in cases where you may not be able to send for those tests - especially more specific tests, such as methylmalonic acid or homocysteine. Dr Monteith: With your hospitalist experience, can you think of some cases, or like, one case that stands out that made you lose sleep at night, that you cracked the puzzle? Just so that we have this on our radar. Dr Holroyd: Yeah, I think that there's some more unusual causes of toxic myelopathies. We saw a young woman who came in with a very acute, very severe myelopathy after studying for a test. She had a dorsal column-predominant hyperintensity, but all of her other diagnostics - lumbar puncture, everything else - was completely normal. We weren't really thinking of nutritional deficiencies because it was such an acute onset in such a young woman; we are really thinking this must be autoimmune or something else. And it actually came out that she had been ingesting whippets – so, inhaled nitric oxide, which came out a bit later in the history. And we checked for a B12, which was very low, and it turned out to be a nitric oxide-induced vitamin B12 myelopathy, which can be seen but is relatively rare and really stuck out in my mind. Thankfully, she made a full recovery with the supplementation of vitamin B12 and cessation of drug use. Dr Monteith: Wow, that is an impressive story. I'm glad that was on your mind and you figured it out. Dr Holroyd: Thanks. Yeah - team effort. Dr Monteith: What should we take away about nutritional deficiencies? Dr Holroyd: Nutritional myelopathies – I think there are kind of the four main ones that we speak about in the article - vitamin B12, folate, vitamin E and copper - and I think these really have more similarities than differences. They all present clinically very similarly, with the subacute combined degeneration of the cord (the dorsal columns and the corticospinal tracts) - that's going to give you, basically, spasticity and upper motor neuron signs, as well as sensory symptoms (loss of vibration and proprioception). Weakness can be a part of it, but that's usually a bit later in the course. Secondly, they all have similar diagnostics. As I mentioned, the MRI is going to be normal in over 50% of cases of all of these, but when it's abnormal, generally they'll be a T2/FLAIR hyperintensity in the dorsal column, and that will be the most common finding. Often, we don't have a lot of lumbar puncture data from these conditions, but generally, when lumbar puncture is performed, it will be relatively normal or noninflammatory. So, those are some of the similarities. Some of the differences are the risk factors. Vitamin B12 - the risks are going to be mainly bariatric surgery, a vegan diet, or autoimmune pernicious anemia. Folate deficiency from nutritional causes is very rare, so that's usually going to come from someone with an increased folate requirement (sickle cell anemia or certain hematologic malignancies). Vitamin E often comes from malabsorption, as seen in cystic fibrosis, or abetalipoproteinemia, or hepatobiliary disorders. And then finally, copper generally comes from gastric surgeries or from excessive zinc intake, the classic example of being denture cream. I think one way to differentiate these is by looking at the person's risk factors. Finally, I think I tried to categorize them in my head in a few different ways with clues that might give you a specific clue. So, if someone comes in with a subacute myelopathy and they also have a macrocytic anemia, that would push you more towards vitamin B12 or folate. However, if they're presenting with a myeloneuropathy (so, that's upper motor neuron signs) but also a peripheral neuropathy on exam, you might think more vitamin B12 or copper. Then finally, if someone comes in with a myelopathy as well as ataxia, you might think more likely vitamin E deficiency. Those are some ways to categorize these that may otherwise appear very similar. But I think, at the end of the day, and someone with a subacute myelopathy and a nutritional risk factor, you'll end up sending all four of these blood tests to evaluate for appropriate treatment. Dr Monteith: Well, let's move on to climate change. It's not often that we see climate change in a neurology article, but yet it's a thing that affects patients. Can you talk about konzo? I wasn't familiar with the term before reading your article, so thank you. Dr Holroyd: Yeah, it's one of these that we debated - should we include this in the article (because it is relatively rare). But I think it is important to keep a global perspective. Konzo and lathyrism are the two nutritional toxic myelopathies that we talk about, but I'll just focus on konzo for brevity. This occurs in populations that rely on the cassava root for nutrition and generally occurs in times of drought, and that's because drought increases the cyanide content in the cassava root. After higher rates of ingestion, especially in people with protein malnutrition (so, a lot of children and young women), you can actually get a toxic myelopathy from cyanide. And the mechanism is not totally understood, but it tends to be quite acute onset, primarily with spasticity, impaired gait, and weakness. It will self-stabilize, but there really is no way to improve symptoms after it's occurred. It is relatively permanent. There really isn't a lot of data on MRI findings or CSF findings, but the few case reports that have been published, they tend to be normal. I think what's important is that there are very easy public health interventions to prevent these toxicities – so, by simply increasing the wetting time of the cassava root (so, soaking it for longer), you can reduce the cyanide content and really effectively prevent this condition. So, I think the big picture takeaway that can be connected to a lot of other neurologic disorders globally is that we need to be aware of how climate change will affect our environment - and dietary changes, environmental exposures - and focus on early public health interventions to prevent these. So, how can we help prevent these rather than treat them once they happen. Dr Monteith: Are we seeing more of it, or is it just better diagnosed? Dr Holroyd: There's not great public health data on the rates throughout areas. It (so far) has only been reported in the African continent. There have been increases and decreases in numbers based on, I think, both the climate (so, times of drought or worse, malnutrition), but also, I think the reporting - I think it fluctuates not only with the weather but also with the amount of ability to publish on cases. So, I don't think we have a good grasp on whether, globally, their rates of konzo or lathyrism are increasing or not. Dr Monteith: Then, heroin - we have to talk about heroin, right? It's just simply remarkable that close to a million individuals in the US over the age of twelve use heroin in 2020. So, now you just have to talk to us about heroin myelopathy because it's something that we could see. Dr Holroyd: Absolutely. It's not something that I think most clinicians are familiar with as the complication of heroin use. But I'm sure that heroin touches all of our lives as clinicians in any field. There are two types of myelopathy related to heroin. There can be a slower, subacute myelopathy with chronic use. But what's more common, actually, is in people who have a long history of heroin use and then abstain for days to weeks and then use heroin again. This causes a very acute-onset longitudinal myelopathy that often has MRI abnormalities as well and can affect both the cervical and the thoracic cord and be quite severe, affecting all modalities (sensation as well as weakness). The mechanism really is not well understood for this and, therefore, the treatments really aren't well understood, either. Some case reports have trialed IV corticosteroids, but really, there's an unclear benefit for this. Most people will regain some recovery of function, but often it's not full recovery, and some may have no recovery. I think the follow-up question to this is, as we see the composition of drugs change – so, now there's a predominance of fentanyl, actually, whereas most of these case reports were from more traditional heroin. I was actually looking into it - this isn't covered in the article - but there has been one case report in 2019 about fentanyl use in someone who primarily used heroin, was abstinent for eight days but continued to use fentanyl patch, and developed an acute-onset, severe cervical myelopathy quite similar to this traditional heroin myelopathy. So, it seems like fentanyl will probably still have the same risks, but it's slightly less well understood at this point. Dr Monteith: And important also for chronic pain – just, like, poorly managed chronic pain that we might see, as you do during a hospital consultation. Dr Holroyd: Absolutely, yes - especially because this was from a fentanyl patch itself. Dr Monteith: Great. So, why don't you wrap up the most important clinical takeaways from your article? Dr Holroyd: I think one takeaway that we haven't really focused on is that, actually, most of the primary literature on a lot of these topics, especially the nutritional topics, are twenty to thirty years old, and I think updated case series would really inform clinical practice. When it came down to it, actually - folate deficiency - we really only found four to five case reports in all the literature, which I really think is disproportionate to how much we learned about it in medical school and residency. I think, really, a better understanding of (in this era) what the prevalence of these disorders are, how they're presenting, and effective treatments, is really needed. I think that a lot of the exciting work will also occur in the field of oncology, with new treatments, with immune checkpoint inhibitors, and better understanding of how we can mitigate the risks of neurologic complications while still allowing patients the benefit of their cancer treatment. So, I think diagnosing toxic metabolic myelopathies early is very important. And in someone with a subacute, or even acute myelopathy without a clear cause, you should really delve into nutritional, drug use, demographics (kind of, where they're from) - all of these things that we often don't take time to do on history but might be more important in these cases because a lot of them are treatable - it's really important to get to those risk factors early on. I think that's what I would like clinicians to take away from our article. Dr Monteith: Well, I think the article is fully packed with a lot of clinical tips - important tips - but a lot of public health relevance in a really special way that it was written. Any exciting breakthroughs that you're excited about or use of technologies to advance this area? Dr Holroyd: Right now, there really aren't a lot of novel technologies in these areas, or diagnostics. I think, in the future, with some of the more cancer-related radiotherapies or intrathecal chemotherapies, the neuro-oncologists and oncologists will really be at the forefront of minimizing these toxicities. Again, I really think that's where a lot of the more advanced diagnostics will come into play. For the others, I think it's really about early diagnosis and public health awareness, especially as it relates to heroin myelopathy in the US. Dr Monteith: Well, excellent, and thank you for being a part of that public health awareness. Thank you for being on the podcast. Dr Holroyd: Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. Dr Monteith: Thank you, Dr Holroyd for joining me on Continuum Audio. Again, today we've been interviewing Dr Kathryn Holroyd, whose article on toxic metabolic myelopathies appears in the most recent issue of Continuum, on spinal cord disorders. Be sure to check out Continuum Audio podcasts from this and other issues, and thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr. Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing to the journal. There's a link in the episode notes. We'd also appreciate you following the podcast and rating or reviewing it. AAN members: go to the link in the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME for this episode. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio.

The spinal cord is a fragile network containing hundreds of millions of neurons, all passing through a conduit about the size of a dime. A consistent, organized approach to the diagnosis of spinal cord disease is necessary to give patients the best possible care. In this episode, Teshamae Monteith, MD, FAAN, speaks with Carlos Pardo, MD, author of the article “Clinical Approach to Myelopathy Diagnosis,” in the Continuum February 2024 Spinal Cord Disorders issue. Dr. Monteith is the associate editor of Continuum® Audio and an associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Miami, Florida. Dr. Pardo is a professor of neurology and pathology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and director of the Johns Hopkins Myelitis and Myelopathy Center in Baltimore, Maryland. Additional Resources Read the article: Clinical Approach to Myelopathy Diagnosis Subscribe to Continuum: shop.lww.com/Continuum Earn CME (available only to AAN members): continpub.com/AudioCME Continuum® Aloud (verbatim audio-book style recordings of articles available only to Continuum® subscribers): continpub.com/Aloud American Academy of Neurology website: aan.com Social Media facebook.com/continuumcme @ContinuumAAN Host: @headacheMD Transcript Full Transcript Available Here Dr Jones: This is Dr. Lyell Jones, Editor-in-Chief of Continuum, the premier topic-based neurology clinical review and CME journal, from the American Academy of Neurology. Thank you for joining us on Continuum Audio, a companion podcast of the journal. Continuum Audio features conversations with the guest editors and authors of Continuum, who are the leading experts in their fields. Subscribers to the Continuum journal can read the full article or listen to verbatim recordings of the article by visiting the link in the show notes. Subscribers also have access to exclusive audio content not featured on the podcast. As an ad-free journal entirely supported by subscriptions, if you're not already a subscriber, we encourage you to become one. For more information on subscribing, please visit the link in the show notes. AAN members, stay tuned after the episode to hear how you can get CME for listening. Dr Monteith: This is Dr Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. Today, I'm interviewing Dr Carlos Pardo about his article on an Integrative Clinical Approach to Myelopathy Diagnosis, which is found in the February 2024 Continuum issue on spinal cord disorders. Dr Pardo is a professor of neurology and pathology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. Welcome to the podcast. Carlos, thank you so much for this wonderful article. I think it was great! Dr Pardo: Thank you very much for the invitation and, particularly, to continue to write about myelitis and myelopathy - that is one of my passions in my activities as a clinical neurologist. And I think that this is basically one of the areas in which I thought, after finishing my residency training here, to focus, because there was absolutely no good understanding of the biology, clinical profile – particularly, understanding of the pathophysiology of myelitis and myelopathies, and what was called (at that time) transverse myelitis. So, that is what I have spent the past 25 years is try to understand that concept and apply what I was trained, as a neurologist and neuropathologist, to be translated in the clinical practice. Dr Monteith: Great. Well, I definitely want to know - how did you get into this area? Dr Pardo: That's a very nice question. Dr Monteith: I'm going to give you an easy one. Dr Pardo: I was trained as a clinical neurologist, but at the same time was trained as a clinical and experimental neuropathologist. When I finished my residency training, along with some of my co-residents and colleagues in my residency training, we took the challenge to take a neurological disorder that was called at that time transverse myelitis, to investigate diagnosis, clinical neurology of those patients, and investigate the etiological factors contributing to that. Very soon, we discovered that that group of patients that we call transverse myelitis was a very heterogeneous group of patients. And that basically put us in the situation to expand our approach to investigate what were those etiological factors contributing to those pathologies that we call, at that time, transverse myelitis. Since then, we have been focused on that. We have been focusing on characterizing patients with inflammatory myelopathies, with vascular myelopathies, with patients with infection disorders associated myelopathies. That is one of the main messages of the paper, and is - we need to think in a very etiological approach, because the variety of etiological factors that may contribute to spinal cord disorders is quite broad - it's very extensive. We need to be extremely careful when we approach those patients. There are very common myelopathies, there are very rare myelopathies. So, obviously, we always look for the commonalities and common pathologies, but we shouldn't basically forget about those myelopathies that may be rare but are present. I will say, frequently, we ignore the possibility of metabolic-associated myelopathies because we don't see those too much. But after we do an analysis of that equation - the clinical profile, temporal evolution, lesion topography, and biomarkers in imaging, blood, spinal fluid - and we don't find a clear explanation, we need to stop a little bit and think more about other things that we are missing. And frequently, metabolical disorders of the spinal cord are missed, or other type of pathology. That the reason the clinician need to have open mind and, occasionally, need to think out of the box, particularly when there is no clear answer to the search for etiological factors. Dr Monteith: I mean, when we think about spinal cord lesions, they can obviously be devastating because they affect patient's ability to ambulate. Why don't you tell us the most important takeaways from your article? Dr Pardo: Yeah, so this is a very important aspect of the article. The first thing is, if we are going to treat the patient, if we are going to focus in the management of a clinical problem, we need to understand first, what is the clinical diagnosis? What is the cause of the problem? Importantly, what is the etiology or the etiological factors contributing to that problem? The first thing that I always emphasize is, we are not able to treat a patient with a neurological condition if we don't have a very precise diagnosis, regardless what we are investigating in that patient. Specifically, for spinal cord disorders, there is a multitude of etiologies and pathogenic factors and other causes of the disease that may be involved. For that reason, the clinician, the health care provider, need to be aware about how to approach that question; is, we need to answer first the cause and the profile of the spinal cord disorder. And when we need to answer the cause, we need to focus first in evaluating clearly what has been the evolution of the symptoms, how is the neurological exam, how the evolution of the symptoms are going to help us to identify those etiological factors that we are looking for. For that reason, in the approach that I am suggesting to take in patient with the spinal cord disorder, the first critical element of that approach is to sit down and talk very well with the patient about what is going on - what are the main symptoms that are present, what has been the temporal evolution of those symptoms, and what has been basically the pattern of progression of those symptoms - because those are the clinical elements that will facilitate the clinician a much better understanding for the clinical diagnosis. Evaluating the clinical profile of symptoms and evaluating the temporal profile of symptoms is probably the first step for solving that critical equation about the diagnosis of spinal cord disorders. The main target is to establish a diagnosis. Dr Monteith: And that's really the bread and butter of neurology, because we have a global audience and we have some neurologists that practice in areas with very limited resources. But you do speak of some very cool things that I want to also touch on, such as precision medicine, the advances in biomarker development and neuroimaging, as well as investigating different viral etiologies in the pathology of spinal cord disease. So, can you just speak to some of that? You've been in this field now - you said, 25 years - how that evolution has helped you better treat patients. Dr Pardo: That's a very important question, because in 25 years we have learned tons about myelopathies, myelitis, and noninflammatory myelopathies - and it's quite amazing. I think that one of the most important aspects of spinal cord disorders is that, in the past 25 years, we have learned about mechanism of the disease in spinal cord disorders. Back in the 20th century we used the term transverse myelitis, and one of the main messages that I have for the clinicians who are reading the article is, please stop using that terminology. We have now capability to establish a more precise diagnosis, a more etiologically oriented diagnosis. If you can take a look at what happened in the past 25 years, understanding spinal cord disorders is quite amazing. We have a better understanding of the immunological factors that contribute to myelopathies. We are able to diagnose myelopathies associated with aquaporin 4 disorders, or MOG-associated disorders, or demyelinating diseases, or infectious disorders. So, in the past 25 years, with a combination of different tools in laboratory studies, studies of spinal fluid analysis, studies of the blood, we have basically able to identify biological markers that may guide us to treat more precisely those patients that are suffering from immune-related disorders. In the same way, imaging has contributed dramatically to improve our understanding of myelopathy. We are able to use neuroimaging studies to differentiate in better way, what are the myelopathies that are associated with vascular etiology, versus myelopathies that are associated with inflammatory etiology. In other words, the 25 years have provided all set of tools (assays, imaging techniques) that allow us to establish a better and precise diagnosis that facilitate etiological diagnosis. And in that way, we avoid the use of the term, transverse myelitis, that I frequently say is a basket diagnosis that is not taking us anywhere, because we are not using properly the etiological diagnostic approach. Dr Monteith: In the setting of all of this evolution, what do you still find challenging, and as well, rewarding in treating these types of patients? Dr Pardo: The best reward that we obtain when we establish this type of diagnosis is that we are able to facilitate better recovery, we are able to identify the factors associated with the problem, and eventually, to target, in a better way, those factors that are contributing to the problem and identify potential avenues for full recovery of the spinal cord. If we are dealing, for example, with patients with suspected inflammatory myelopathies, and we are able to identify an antibody that is contributing to that inflammatory myelopathy - like in the case of neuromyelitis optica - I think that the reward is that we are going to avoid a very long process that is going to decrease our ability to rescue that spinal cord and facilitate improvement of that patient. If we identify a vascular myelopathy and we are able to establish promptly a precise diagnosis of a stroke of the spinal cord, that will avoid that the patient goes in a very long road of treatments that even may be more harmful for that patient. And in that way, we are able to contribute the recovery and facilitate improvement of those patients with vascular spinal cord disorders. This is the reward: the reward is that we are able to facilitate a much better recovery of those patients and, in that way, to improve outcomes in those patients that are suffering myelopathies. Dr Monteith: What's been some of the more surprising cases in your practice, in terms of patient presentations, surprise recoveries, or whatever? Dr Pardo: One of the best rewards that we have seen in our research (clinical research) in the past several years is to be able to provide a much better framework for evaluating patients. The other aspect is to be able to identify patients that have very specific pathologies, like strokes of the spinal cord - ischemic pathology of the spinal cord that may be acute ischemic pathology or even chronic evolving pathology. In that way, actually, we have been able to establish much better protocol for assessment of those patients. That is actually one of the major aspects of our progression in terms of understanding the spinal cord disorders. And that is the reason - once again, I emphasize that when we use the term transverse myelitis and we erroneously diagnose patients with transverse myelitis when they are experiencing vascular pathologies of the spinal cord, we are basically not serving well those patients. That is one of the emphasis that I always include in the manuscript is, it is much better to spend time establishing a diagnosis (etiological diagnosis) rather than treating empirically diagnosis that probably are not going to be very well served by using treatments that probably are not going to benefit the patient. For example, when we deal with patients that have vascular myelopathies associated with chronic venous abnormalities, like happen in dural arteriovenous fistula, we are deserting those patients by treating them with IV methylprednisolone or treating them with IVIG, or treating them with immunosuppressive treatments. This is a critical element of the precision approach to establish a better diagnosis in patients with myelopathy. Dr Monteith: And then, your article spoke a little bit about recent outbreaks of infectious etiologies - viral etiologies. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because sometimes we send off these tests and they come back nonspecific or negative, and we have a sense that this was an infectious process. Maybe there was a prodromal phase, or something like that. Can you speak about your excitement in the area of advances in these methodologies? Dr Pardo: Yeah - this is an important aspect of the clinical conversation. Our patients may provide initial clues for identification of potential risk factors, such as infections, as etiological factors contributing to spinal cord disorder. When you are discussing with patients about specific symptoms that emerge after they have experienced either illnesses or systemic symptoms (like fever, chills, rash, or anything that look like an infection disorder) it's extremely important for the clinician to try to characterize that in much better way so we can use those elements of the investigation to determine if infection disorders may be involved as etiological factors in those myelopathies. We were trained to think about transverse myelitis as either an immunological-mediated disorder or an infection-mediated disorder. That's the reason I think that the clinician need to be open-minded when he's interviewing the patients to acquire, as much as possible, elements of the clinical history that may focus  or avoid that the clinician pay too much attention to things that are not involved as etiological factor. Infection disorders frequently may produce neurological problems, and, obviously, spinal cord inflammation is one of those neurological problems. However, it's very important that the clinician be critical in the assessment of those potential risk factors. I frequently discuss with the students and residents in our ward that it's okay to think about West Nile myelitis when we are in the summer, but we are not able to discuss specifically about West Nile myelitis in middle of the winter, and particularly because those are etiological factors that are associated with seasonality and those are etiological factors that are associated with some risk factors that include, for example, mosquito transmission of a virus. When we talk about acute flaccid myelitis with our pediatric patient population, we need to think about circulation of viruses, and we need to think about if that is the right period of circulation of the virus that we are suspicious that is producing that spinal cord disorder. Again, the clinician need to be aware about the particularities of some infection disorder - seasonality, modes of transmission - to think about what is going on in terms of etiological factors, particularly infections, as part of causes of spinal cord inflammation. Dr Monteith: Let's talk a little bit about some controversies - things that maybe lead to overdiagnosis or underdiagnosis. Dr Pardo: It's a very good question, and I appreciate the controversy, always. One thing that is going back to the basis of the article is the precise diagnosis is strictly dependent of equation that involves different factors. We are not able to diagnose spinal cord disorders just using one factor of that equation. This is something that is extremely important for the clinician and health care provider. We are not able to establish a precise diagnosis just when we use only neuroimaging studies. We need to bring the clinical profile of that patient, the neurological examination, the neuroimaging studies, the spinal fluid analysis to the same equation. That is one of the controversies, because in the past, we relied heavily on neuroimaging studies for establishing a diagnosis of myelopathies. But I believe that has been a little bit of a mistake because we have been ignoring major elements of the clinical history and neurological examination. And probably the best example of that is the example of spinal cord strokes. When patients show up in the emergency department with acute onset of weakness and sensory problems, and an MRI show a lesion in the spinal cord, that is not automatically a myelitis. That is an acute spinal cord disorder in which the clinician has the responsibility to establish the precise diagnosis. This is one of the major messages that I want to give to our colleagues in the clinical setting is, we need to interview the patient; we need to characterize the clinical profile and make sure that what we see in the spinal cord MRI fits the clinical profile, the neurological examination, and even the spinal fluid analysis of that patient. One of the controversies that we have frequently is to diagnose patients with spinal cord strokes, because there is no gold standard for those diagnosis, unfortunately. It's a diagnosis that is comprised by several layers of assessment. In that way, we need to reach, basically, a consensus how to deal with those patients and how to manage those patients correctly. Dr Monteith: So, of course, we have a broad, I guess, “background” of listeners - from residents, medical students, even lay audience, as well as, of course, from neurologists. But why should a resident go into spinal cord disease as a subspecialty? Dr Pardo: It's a very important aspect of the central nervous system function. I always equate the spinal cord as the major avenue for the neurological function in the human body. If there is a very good connectivity in our brain and brain hemispheres, that connectivity is not going to be effective if there is not a healthy and very good function in the spinal cord. The spinal cord is the best avenue for execution of many of the function of the central nervous system. And in that way, a clinician who is working in neurology need to be aware about the spinal cord - need to be aware about the pathophysiology of the spinal cord. Because even if there is not any element of cognitive function in the spinal cord, we have all of the major avenues that facilitate the human function in the spinal cord - motor function, autonomical function, sensory function – so, most of the central nervous system function needs to go through the spinal cord. And the clinician (neurologists and residents) need to be aware - fully aware - about how to approach disorders of the spinal cord, how to identify correctly disorders of the spinal cord, and how to evaluate and treat those disorders. Dr Monteith: Well, thank you - I really appreciate this talk. I really appreciate your article. It was very thorough, including “the bread and the butter,” the approach to a patient clinically, but also all the new innovation in your field and all of the excitement. And of course, your story, too. So, thank you so much. Dr Pardo: Thank you, Tesha, for inviting me to this interview, and I hope that at least the main message is very well taken. Remember, the main goal of my proposal in this article: number one, is to get rid of the diagnosis of transverse myelitis; number two, that the clinician and health care providers establish a better etiological diagnosis that facilitate better recovery of patients, better management, and better outcomes in patients with spinal cord disorders. Dr Monteith: Thank you, Dr Pardo for joining me on Continuum Audio. Again, today we've been interviewing Dr Carlos Pardo, whose article on an integrative clinical approach to myelopathy diagnosis appears in the most recent issue of Continuum on Spinal Cord Disorders. Thank you to our listeners for joining today. Dr Monteith: This is Dr. Teshamae Monteith, Associate Editor of Continuum Audio. If you've enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing to the journal. There's a link in the episode notes. We'd also appreciate you following the podcast and rating or reviewing it. AAN members,go to the link the episode notes and complete the evaluation to get CME for this episode. Thank you for listening to Continuum Audio. 

This is episode #45 of The Awaken Indy Podcast. This week, we have Rick Montieth on the show. If you've listened to the show before, you know Rick is one of our regular guests and always shares a wealth of information. Today's episode will cover:Why you may consider an oxalate free diet.What foods are high and low in oxalates. What supplements and herbs can be helpful in riding the body of excess oxalates.The role of minerals and the best way to supplement with them.Structured water and the Iteracare wand.PEMF. The Tao Patch.Glyphosate. And much more!If you enjoyed Rick and Aron's message, connect with us:Email: (Rick) rick@georgetownmarket.com, (Aron) hartwoodherbals@gmail.com Website: https://georgetownmarket.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/GeorgetownMarketInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/georgetownmarket/, (Aron) https://www.instagram.com/hartwoodherbals/We also appreciate it if you could like and share today's episode. Also, please subscribe to the show so you can receive updates when episodes come out. Remember, if you'd like your questions answered on the show, please submit them to podcast@georgetownmarket.com. Enjoy!Link: https://georgetownmarket.com/awakenindypodcast

Interview aired the weekend of 11/17/23

Dustin welcomes Natasha, one of our faithful bloggers, to the show this week. She shares her perspective on how student affairs divisions need to approach assessment to better manage their teams as well as support their students.

The relationship between maternal nutrition and antler growth in ungulates, including elk, mule deer, and whitetail deer, shows the lasting impact of prenatal conditions on male offspring. Maternal diets rich in minerals, proteins, and key nutrients contribute to the proper development of antlers, the iconic structures vital for mating success and survival. This process, known as fetal programming, underscores the importance of maternal well-being in shaping the future of ungulate populations. Recognizing the cascading effects of maternal nutrition on its offspring is crucial for wildlife management and habitat preservation. Monteith, Kevin L., et al. "Effects of harvest, culture, and climate on trends in size of horn‐like structures in trophy ungulates." Wildlife Monographs 183.1 (2013): 1-28.  Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!): https://uppbeat.io/t/paul-yudin/your-adrenaline License code: QWS1TG5BYTFK2P  

Many people view the War on Drugs as a contemporary phenomenon invented by the Nixon administration. But as Dr. Andrew Monteith shows in Christian Nationalism and the Birth of the War on Drugs (NYU Press, 2023), the conflict actually began more than a century before, when American Protestants began the temperance movement and linked drug use with immorality. Dr. Monteith argues that this early drug war was deeply rooted in Christian impulses. While many scholars understand Prohibition to have been a Protestant undertaking, it is considerably less common to consider the War on Drugs this way, in part because racism has understandably been the focal point of discussions of the drug war. Antidrug activists expressed—and still do express--blatant white supremacist and nativist motives. Yet this book argues that racism was intertwined with religious impulses. Reformers pursued the “civilising mission,” a wide-ranging project that sought to protect “child races” from harmful influences while remodelling their cultures to look like Europe and the United States. Most reformers saw Christianity as essential to civilization and missionaries felt that banning drugs would encourage religious conversion and progress. This compelling work of scholarship radically reshapes our understanding of one of the longest and most damaging conflicts in modern American history, making the case that we cannot understand the War on Drugs unless we understand its religious origins. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Many people view the War on Drugs as a contemporary phenomenon invented by the Nixon administration. But as Dr. Andrew Monteith shows in Christian Nationalism and the Birth of the War on Drugs (NYU Press, 2023), the conflict actually began more than a century before, when American Protestants began the temperance movement and linked drug use with immorality. Dr. Monteith argues that this early drug war was deeply rooted in Christian impulses. While many scholars understand Prohibition to have been a Protestant undertaking, it is considerably less common to consider the War on Drugs this way, in part because racism has understandably been the focal point of discussions of the drug war. Antidrug activists expressed—and still do express--blatant white supremacist and nativist motives. Yet this book argues that racism was intertwined with religious impulses. Reformers pursued the “civilising mission,” a wide-ranging project that sought to protect “child races” from harmful influences while remodelling their cultures to look like Europe and the United States. Most reformers saw Christianity as essential to civilization and missionaries felt that banning drugs would encourage religious conversion and progress. This compelling work of scholarship radically reshapes our understanding of one of the longest and most damaging conflicts in modern American history, making the case that we cannot understand the War on Drugs unless we understand its religious origins. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Many people view the War on Drugs as a contemporary phenomenon invented by the Nixon administration. But as Dr. Andrew Monteith shows in Christian Nationalism and the Birth of the War on Drugs (NYU Press, 2023), the conflict actually began more than a century before, when American Protestants began the temperance movement and linked drug use with immorality. Dr. Monteith argues that this early drug war was deeply rooted in Christian impulses. While many scholars understand Prohibition to have been a Protestant undertaking, it is considerably less common to consider the War on Drugs this way, in part because racism has understandably been the focal point of discussions of the drug war. Antidrug activists expressed—and still do express--blatant white supremacist and nativist motives. Yet this book argues that racism was intertwined with religious impulses. Reformers pursued the “civilising mission,” a wide-ranging project that sought to protect “child races” from harmful influences while remodelling their cultures to look like Europe and the United States. Most reformers saw Christianity as essential to civilization and missionaries felt that banning drugs would encourage religious conversion and progress. This compelling work of scholarship radically reshapes our understanding of one of the longest and most damaging conflicts in modern American history, making the case that we cannot understand the War on Drugs unless we understand its religious origins. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Many people view the War on Drugs as a contemporary phenomenon invented by the Nixon administration. But as Dr. Andrew Monteith shows in Christian Nationalism and the Birth of the War on Drugs (NYU Press, 2023), the conflict actually began more than a century before, when American Protestants began the temperance movement and linked drug use with immorality. Dr. Monteith argues that this early drug war was deeply rooted in Christian impulses. While many scholars understand Prohibition to have been a Protestant undertaking, it is considerably less common to consider the War on Drugs this way, in part because racism has understandably been the focal point of discussions of the drug war. Antidrug activists expressed—and still do express--blatant white supremacist and nativist motives. Yet this book argues that racism was intertwined with religious impulses. Reformers pursued the “civilising mission,” a wide-ranging project that sought to protect “child races” from harmful influences while remodelling their cultures to look like Europe and the United States. Most reformers saw Christianity as essential to civilization and missionaries felt that banning drugs would encourage religious conversion and progress. This compelling work of scholarship radically reshapes our understanding of one of the longest and most damaging conflicts in modern American history, making the case that we cannot understand the War on Drugs unless we understand its religious origins. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Many people view the War on Drugs as a contemporary phenomenon invented by the Nixon administration. But as Dr. Andrew Monteith shows in Christian Nationalism and the Birth of the War on Drugs (NYU Press, 2023), the conflict actually began more than a century before, when American Protestants began the temperance movement and linked drug use with immorality. Dr. Monteith argues that this early drug war was deeply rooted in Christian impulses. While many scholars understand Prohibition to have been a Protestant undertaking, it is considerably less common to consider the War on Drugs this way, in part because racism has understandably been the focal point of discussions of the drug war. Antidrug activists expressed—and still do express--blatant white supremacist and nativist motives. Yet this book argues that racism was intertwined with religious impulses. Reformers pursued the “civilising mission,” a wide-ranging project that sought to protect “child races” from harmful influences while remodelling their cultures to look like Europe and the United States. Most reformers saw Christianity as essential to civilization and missionaries felt that banning drugs would encourage religious conversion and progress. This compelling work of scholarship radically reshapes our understanding of one of the longest and most damaging conflicts in modern American history, making the case that we cannot understand the War on Drugs unless we understand its religious origins. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Many people view the War on Drugs as a contemporary phenomenon invented by the Nixon administration. But as Dr. Andrew Monteith shows in Christian Nationalism and the Birth of the War on Drugs (NYU Press, 2023), the conflict actually began more than a century before, when American Protestants began the temperance movement and linked drug use with immorality. Dr. Monteith argues that this early drug war was deeply rooted in Christian impulses. While many scholars understand Prohibition to have been a Protestant undertaking, it is considerably less common to consider the War on Drugs this way, in part because racism has understandably been the focal point of discussions of the drug war. Antidrug activists expressed—and still do express--blatant white supremacist and nativist motives. Yet this book argues that racism was intertwined with religious impulses. Reformers pursued the “civilising mission,” a wide-ranging project that sought to protect “child races” from harmful influences while remodelling their cultures to look like Europe and the United States. Most reformers saw Christianity as essential to civilization and missionaries felt that banning drugs would encourage religious conversion and progress. This compelling work of scholarship radically reshapes our understanding of one of the longest and most damaging conflicts in modern American history, making the case that we cannot understand the War on Drugs unless we understand its religious origins. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Many people view the War on Drugs as a contemporary phenomenon invented by the Nixon administration. But as Dr. Andrew Monteith shows in Christian Nationalism and the Birth of the War on Drugs (NYU Press, 2023), the conflict actually began more than a century before, when American Protestants began the temperance movement and linked drug use with immorality. Dr. Monteith argues that this early drug war was deeply rooted in Christian impulses. While many scholars understand Prohibition to have been a Protestant undertaking, it is considerably less common to consider the War on Drugs this way, in part because racism has understandably been the focal point of discussions of the drug war. Antidrug activists expressed—and still do express--blatant white supremacist and nativist motives. Yet this book argues that racism was intertwined with religious impulses. Reformers pursued the “civilising mission,” a wide-ranging project that sought to protect “child races” from harmful influences while remodelling their cultures to look like Europe and the United States. Most reformers saw Christianity as essential to civilization and missionaries felt that banning drugs would encourage religious conversion and progress. This compelling work of scholarship radically reshapes our understanding of one of the longest and most damaging conflicts in modern American history, making the case that we cannot understand the War on Drugs unless we understand its religious origins. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/drugs-addiction-and-recovery

Many people view the War on Drugs as a contemporary phenomenon invented by the Nixon administration. But as Dr. Andrew Monteith shows in Christian Nationalism and the Birth of the War on Drugs (NYU Press, 2023), the conflict actually began more than a century before, when American Protestants began the temperance movement and linked drug use with immorality. Dr. Monteith argues that this early drug war was deeply rooted in Christian impulses. While many scholars understand Prohibition to have been a Protestant undertaking, it is considerably less common to consider the War on Drugs this way, in part because racism has understandably been the focal point of discussions of the drug war. Antidrug activists expressed—and still do express--blatant white supremacist and nativist motives. Yet this book argues that racism was intertwined with religious impulses. Reformers pursued the “civilising mission,” a wide-ranging project that sought to protect “child races” from harmful influences while remodelling their cultures to look like Europe and the United States. Most reformers saw Christianity as essential to civilization and missionaries felt that banning drugs would encourage religious conversion and progress. This compelling work of scholarship radically reshapes our understanding of one of the longest and most damaging conflicts in modern American history, making the case that we cannot understand the War on Drugs unless we understand its religious origins. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many people view the War on Drugs as a contemporary phenomenon invented by the Nixon administration. But as Dr. Andrew Monteith shows in Christian Nationalism and the Birth of the War on Drugs (NYU Press, 2023), the conflict actually began more than a century before, when American Protestants began the temperance movement and linked drug use with immorality. Dr. Monteith argues that this early drug war was deeply rooted in Christian impulses. While many scholars understand Prohibition to have been a Protestant undertaking, it is considerably less common to consider the War on Drugs this way, in part because racism has understandably been the focal point of discussions of the drug war. Antidrug activists expressed—and still do express--blatant white supremacist and nativist motives. Yet this book argues that racism was intertwined with religious impulses. Reformers pursued the “civilising mission,” a wide-ranging project that sought to protect “child races” from harmful influences while remodelling their cultures to look like Europe and the United States. Most reformers saw Christianity as essential to civilization and missionaries felt that banning drugs would encourage religious conversion and progress. This compelling work of scholarship radically reshapes our understanding of one of the longest and most damaging conflicts in modern American history, making the case that we cannot understand the War on Drugs unless we understand its religious origins. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many people view the War on Drugs as a contemporary phenomenon invented by the Nixon administration. But as Dr. Andrew Monteith shows in Christian Nationalism and the Birth of the War on Drugs (NYU Press, 2023), the conflict actually began more than a century before, when American Protestants began the temperance movement and linked drug use with immorality. Dr. Monteith argues that this early drug war was deeply rooted in Christian impulses. While many scholars understand Prohibition to have been a Protestant undertaking, it is considerably less common to consider the War on Drugs this way, in part because racism has understandably been the focal point of discussions of the drug war. Antidrug activists expressed—and still do express--blatant white supremacist and nativist motives. Yet this book argues that racism was intertwined with religious impulses. Reformers pursued the “civilising mission,” a wide-ranging project that sought to protect “child races” from harmful influences while remodelling their cultures to look like Europe and the United States. Most reformers saw Christianity as essential to civilization and missionaries felt that banning drugs would encourage religious conversion and progress. This compelling work of scholarship radically reshapes our understanding of one of the longest and most damaging conflicts in modern American history, making the case that we cannot understand the War on Drugs unless we understand its religious origins. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

Joey and Venny had the opportunity to speak to James Monteith, guitarist from Tesseract. Hot off the release of their new album 'War of Being', they talked about whether this is their best-ever album. We also asked James about his favourite releases he has worked on this year, through his Hold Tight PR company.

We are back with another episode of Wild Things & Wild Places! Make sure to download and subscribe to more fun with the Muley Fanatic Foundation. In this episode we are glad to welcome Dr. Kevin Monteith a professor with the University of Wyoming and Wyoming Excellence Chair. You will find out more about the ‘Monteith Shop' and the great work they are doing advancing science and management. Plus, you get a better understanding of “Dr. Deer”, as he has been affectionately named, and the impactful endeavors of Dr. Kevin Monteith.  One of the most common topics between hunters right now is the rough winter we just had and how that has impacted wildlife, Dr. Monteith will address some questions surrounding this topic.  Don't miss out on furthering the journey with Wild Things & Wild Places. Become a member of the Muley Fanatic Foundation and help make a difference. Join an organization that gets things done. Find out more here. At the end of every episode there is a Campfire Chat that will take you to sitting around the campfire with heartfelt stories. Don't miss this father-daughter campfire chat. These two kindle traditions with conversations about hunting, bonding and the great outdoors. Mykenna Coursey-Jewell joins this Campfire Chat to talk of the importance of hunting and share her story. You can find a Campfire Chat after every episode! Don't miss them. 

What are monteiths? It's a silver punch bowl from the late 17th and early 18th centuries. But WHO is Monteith? We just don't know. Or do we???

In a study conducted 90% of all female mule deer were pregnant and it didn't matter whether the habitat was excellent or poor. That is a different strategy employed vs that of elk or moose. That does not mean they will have a successful birth but it does give the overall population a chance to rebound after a bad year.   MONTEITH, K.L. et al. (2007) ‘Evaluation of techniques for categorizing group membership of white-Tailed Deer', Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(5), pp. 1712–1716. doi:10.2193/2005-763.   Heffelfinger, J. and Krausman, P.R. (2023) Ecology and management of black-tailed and mule deer of North America. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.   Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!): https://uppbeat.io/t/paul-yudin/your-adrenaline License code: QWS1TG5BYTFK2PCL

Vonette served over 24 years as an Army Officer following graduation. She currently lives in Watertown NY in an 1800's vintage building that she bought while stationed at Fort Drum. She owns and operates a restaurant that occupies the downstairs of her multi-story building: Empire Square - Southern Fusion Restaurant and cocktail bar. She recalls her tough slog with academics and her priceless friendships she forged while getting through West Point.  

Some of New Zealand's most well-known beer brands - Steinlager, Mac's and Monteith's - have been picked among the Top 30 beers at this year's New World Beer and Cider Awards. But also listed among those big winners is the little-known Otago Brew School in Cromwell. The brew school offers hands-on training to polytech students wanting to get involved in the beer industry, and their dark german wheat beer, Klassenbester Dunkelweizen, has come away with one of the top spots. Joining Guyon Espiner is Otago Brew School lecturer and brewing course leader, Geoff Collie.

Rare Bill Cooper ALL MUST hear!Video Version: RBC1 VideoDR MONZO CODE for 15% off: BaalBusters15. Click the Image at https://SemperFryLLC.comTHIS CHANNEL IS INDEPENDENT and has no sponsors but YOU Patreon: https://patreon.com/DisguisetheLimitsONE TIMER: https://GiveSendGo.com/BaalBustersor JOIN Locals by Clicking the JOIN Button Beneath the video.Get a Health Advocate! https://Graithcare.com Referral Code: BBRESCUESHIRTS & MERCH https://my-store-c960b1.creator-spring.com/Get Healthy and Independent with DR PETER GLIDDEN, ND https://riseupintohealth.com/?=ndhealth Twitter: https://twitter.com/DisguiseLimitsFREE Roku TV channel: https://channelstore.roku.com/details/a44cff88b32c2fcc7e090320c66c4d09/baal-busters-broadcastFor COPPERINE which my whole family uses, go here: https://BioChemScience.com and use BB2023 for Free ShippingThe Host, Daniel Kristos, is a US Coast Guard veteran, author, a father, small business owner, researcher, avid reader, and independent historian.

The Girl From Malta by Fergus Hume audiobook. One evening as the P. and O.'s vessel "Neptune" steams away from Australia to Britain, Ronald Monteith, a young, wealthy Australian is taken into the confidence of a fellow-passenger Lionel Ventin who relates the story of his rather tragic life. When Ventin is found stabbed to death in his cabin the next morning Monteith vows to find the murderer, thinking it must surely be the vengeful wife of whom he spoke who is responsible. When arriving in London he immediately seeks the help of a barrister and a detective. However, as he delves deeper into the mystery, he is mortified to find the evidence begins to point to the girl he has fallen in love with - the girl from Malta..

Originally broadcast on the Prophecy Club circa 1999. Stanley Monteith reveals the shadow rulers that cause wars and revolutions; the origins of communism and socialism, and their covert motivation to create world government. He also explains the Rhodes Scholar secret society created in 1891 by Cecil Rhodes.Email: thefacthunter@mail.com

This week we're revisiting one of Artemis's best-loved series of all time - Chasing Ungulate Tales with the scientists at the Montieth Shop at the University of Wyoming. You've heard it before: "If we kill the animals with the biggest horns, aren't we selecting for smaller horns over time?" This week we take a deep dive into that question with ungulate biologist Tayler LaSharr in the third episode of our special series with The Monteith Shop. We'll also talk about her research into how mule deer behaviors are affected by harsh winter events.  2:30 Squirrels... the gateway drug to hunting? 4:00 A Wyoming antelope hunt with all the science gals, creeping in for that 150-yard shot 7:30 Autopsy is to human what Necropsy (NEE-kraap-see) is to animals 9:00 Antelope heart pastrami (!!!) - get the how-to right here 10:00 Jess's Wyoming tag line-up: Three antelope, three elk, three deer, and one bear 13:00 Research deep-dive: The effects of hunter harvest on horn size in sheep. It started with a paper that used Boone & Crockett data to assess changes in horn size over time 14:30 Bighorn sheep harvested by hunters anywhere are required to be checked into a Fish and Game station… which means there's a treasure trove of data on size/ages of in every state 16:00 Horn size is a function of age + nutrition + genetics 19:00 Mom's nutrition affects her son's antler size 21:00 Does the removal of big males (by hunter harvest) change a population's genetics over time? A lot of it has to do with the average age of rams being harvested in different years 23:00 Alberta harvests sheep by a different standard -- the four-fifths curl. When you have management scenarios where harvest is determined by horns and not age (the annuli), there is evidence that it leads to decreased horn size over time. For example, if a five-year-old grows fast and gets to that four-fifths curl before other individuals his age, he stands to be harvested sooner from his population and may not have adequate chance to breed and pass on his genetics 25:00 How do you age a bighorn sheep?  27:00 One hedge against the overharvest of big-horned young animals is a conservative tag system... it's still a once-in-a-lifetime hunt in many states 29:00 "Evolution reverse" is this theory (/misunderstanding) that hunter harvest of big-horned animals selects out those traits in a population over time. In reality, it's way more complicated than that... management strategy plays a big role in how traits persist over time. Many factors are involved, and broad generalizations generally don't hold up all the time. 31:00 Changes in game management aren't often reflected in an animal population for years/decades 37:00 Rhiannon Jakopak's digest of Tayler's horn size work in layman's terms 38:00 Connecting sheep scientists with sheep hunters 40:00 The Wyoming Range Mule Deer Project  - a long-term study following deer individuals throughout their lives AND their offspring 42:00 Looking at the after-effect of harsh winters on mule deer. Differences in behavioral strategies? Migration routes? Reproductive strategies/mothering behavior? What allowed them to survive when other deer succumbed to winterkill? 48:00 Fish and Game departments have to balance immediate hunter desire against the long-term, ever-changing health/hardiness of game populations 57:00 The genesis of an ungulate biologist!  59:00 Check out more of the Monteith shop at UngulateCompendium.org

Margo Monteith is a Distinguished Professor of Psychological Sciences at Purdue University. She studies how we can reduce prejudice in the world by confronting those biases head-on. One way we can confront prejudice is to keep ourselves in check, paying attention to the ways in which we might say or do something biased. Another way we can confront prejudice is to call out other people when they say or do something biased. In our conversation, Margo gives a big overview of her work in these areas and highlights the importance of keeping these biases under control. For big, up-to-date overviews of the research we talk about in this episode, you can check out a new chapter in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Monteith et al., 2022) and Margo's 2019 book with Robyn Mallet: Confronting Prejudice and Discrimination.For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

This episode features Dr. Stephen Monteith, Director of Cerebrovascular Neurosurgery at Providence Swedish. Here, he discusses new innovative technologies for surgical planning and optimization, what types of cases this technology is being used for, the significance & benefits of surgical planning, and more.

This episode features Dr. Stephen Monteith, Director of Cerebrovascular Neurosurgery at Providence Swedish. Here, he discusses new innovative technologies for surgical planning and optimization, what types of cases this technology is being used for, the significance & benefits of surgical planning, and more.

WR discusses his first book Prophet of Evil on Radio Liberty with Stan Monteith in 2010.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

ALLISON is a retired interiors designer from England. Her and her second husband owned their own commercial construction business for over 25 years. She thought her entire identity was wrapped up in this occupation. She loved it and was dang good at it! Now at the age of 64 she has started a new career… Read More »She Became Visible – 002: Allison Monteith The post She Became Visible – 002: Allison Monteith appeared first on Mormon Discussions Podcasts - Full Lineup.

Cory Monteith was a global superstar. The clean-cut all-American quarterback on television's “Glee” was idolized by millions of teens around the world. “Glee” thrust him into instant stardom in 2009 and his public persona mirrored his on-screen character. But on July 13th, 2013 he was found dead on the floor of his Vancouver hotel room. What caused the clean-living TV star's death at just 31? Forensic Pathologist, Dr. Michael Hunter digs into Monteith's autopsy report to reveal another man underneath Cory's squeaky-clean exterior. Did a dark and troubled past that come back to haunt Cory Monteith before his untimely death? Like what you hear and want more true crime and mystery? Go to https://www.reelz.com/podcasts/